Should we discourage the use of literal px sizes for thumbnails? I think they should only be used for diagrams that need to be smaller but readable, for instance. Then recommend that if the user likes bigger thumbnails to change the setting in their preferences instead. — Omegatron16:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I strongly believe we should discourage hard-coding pixel size in. We don't know what size screen an editor is using, so we have no idea what's appropriate. "thumb" is sufficient, with the default being the smallest (since users with small screens suffer from large pics more than users with large screens suffer from small pics). pfctdayelise13:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
This has really been bugging me recently. Whenever people specify an image size it's usually to make the image bigger than the default 180px, but they usually choose a size that's still too small for me. I'm going to be bold and add a note about this to the page (this was discussed before). ~MDD469617:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree we should discourage literal pixel sizes. After all, 100px may be 8.5cm or 8.5mm depending on the device used to view the page. Perhaps it would be nice if there were "magic words" to indicate sizes like "larger than a usual picture", "icon", "a multiple of the line height" (ems?), a percentage of the default size, or the like. Shinobu00:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
It still happens very often that a lot of images are being size fixed (usually to make them bigger). Considering the inherent problems of defining a fixed size for images, and the visual inconsistency when the article contains all kinds of images at all kinds of sizes, I think there is a need for a MoS directive on this. Who wants to help? Shinobu08:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
There is not a real way to do it. You can file a feature request. What is the exact application you are looking for? There is a template that provides this functionality, but it's a fragile hack in my opinion, and I'm not going to point you to it yet. :-) It only works in a few browsers, and not consistently. — Omegatron23:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
For imaging licensing purposes such as attribution it is important that the image link to it's media page, links can be put in the caption. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me)03:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
This is true on wikipedia, but on some wikis it might be more convenient to have a simple way to make an image a direct link. (The hacks you have to go through for this right now are ridiculous, btw.) --Starwed12:22, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Any way to pad images?
Looking at the infobox on the current AT&T page, I noticed that the logo was cropped a little too closely; there's not enough white space on the top or bottom, especially the top. But I can't figure out a way to add some padding around the image. I know I could just edit the image itself, but I was wondering if there is any Wikimarkup in place to allow padding that I'm just not aware of. And if there isn't, could there be? --Aaron03:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm looking for something similar, I would like to be able to pad the diagram image here (among other places) so that the frame matches the width of the picture below it (and is wide enough to fit the caption). I could mess around and add the extra space to the image itself, but that's reaallly ugly. - Mobius18:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
picture below picture, still aligned
i've been looking for a while and i can't seem to find any way to have more than one picture aligned to the same side of the page with text on the other side rather than just in between the images. is it even possible? Amirman22:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Can't you just put them above each other?
Test test test goof pop rawr jig pow foo biz baz boom test test goof pop rawr jig pow foo biz baz boomtest test goof pop rawr jig pow foo biz baz boomtest test goof pop rawr jig pow foo biz baz boomtest test goof pop rawr jig pow foo biz baz boomtest test goof pop rawr jig pow foo biz baz boomtest test goof pop rawr jig pow foo biz baz boomtest test goof pop rawr jig pow foo biz baz boomtest test goof pop rawr jig pow foo biz baz boomtest test goof pop rawr jig pow foo biz baz boomtest test goof pop rawr jig pow foo biz baz boomtest test goof pop rawr jig pow foo biz baz boomtest test goof pop rawr jig pow foo biz baz boomtest test goof pop rawr jig pow foo biz baz boomtest test goof pop rawr jig pow foo biz baz boomtest test goof pop rawr jig pow foo biz baz boomtest test goof pop rawr jig pow foo biz baz boomtest test goof pop rawr jig pow foo biz baz boomtest test goof pop rawr jig pow foo biz baz boomtest test goof pop rawr jig pow foo biz baz boomtest test goof pop rawr jig pow foo biz baz boomtest test goof pop rawr jig pow foo biz baz boomtest test goof pop rawr jig pow foo biz baz boomtest test goof pop rawr jig pow foo biz baz boomtest test goof pop rawr jig pow foo biz baz boomtest test goof pop rawr jig pow foo biz baz boomtest test goof pop rawr jig pow foo biz baz boomtest test goof pop rawr jig pow foo biz baz boomtest test goof pop rawr jig pow foo biz baz boomtest test goof pop rawr jig pow foo biz baz boomtest test goof pop rawr jig pow foo biz baz boomtest test goof pop rawr jig pow foo biz baz boomtest test goof pop rawr jig pow foo biz baz boomtest test goof pop rawr jig pow foo biz baz boomtest test goof pop rawr jig pow foo biz baz boomtest test goof pop rawr jig pow foo biz baz boomtest test goof pop rawr jig pow foo biz baz boomtest test goof pop rawr jig pow foo biz baz boomtest test goof pop rawr jig pow foo biz baz boomtest test goof pop rawr jig pow foo biz baz boomtest test goof pop rawr jig pow foo biz baz boomtest test goof pop rawr jig pow foo biz baz boom
I am surprised to see the "Compatibility considerations" section Omnplex added recently, and I would like to remove it. Compatibility with browsers that don't support float is hardly a concern. If people are using browsers like IE5 or NN4, they've got to expect that web sites might look a little screwed up. All modern (as in, released within that past 2-3 years) support floats just fine. This legacy code just clutters up the wikicode. ~MDD469617:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, the need for a border option is real. There are many places where tiny flag thumbnails are either not getting the border they need, or are getting the border using {{border}} but messing up the text afterward. OzLawyer19:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Enlarge bug
As you can see in the 2nd part of the thumb/thumbnail subsection, the globe is not being enlarged on the project page. └VodkaJazz / talk┐12:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Scaling should be done with Height, or both Height and Width
I am currently writing an article (in another Wiki-project) that requires a lot of pictures. All of them have varied widths and heights, some are very tall while others are flat and wide. The problem is that I have not that much text but a lot of images, so unless I scale down the pictures, I end up with a lot of space filled with nothing but images. If there was a way to scale down pictures with height I could easily fix this problem. --Ravenstorm18:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
OOoooh that would be a very nice feature (where you could specify max height, max width and have it size to fit). In the meantime I've always just calculated the width from the desired height, I know of no automatic way. - Mobius18:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Resizing by height also gives problems with tall, thin images: it seems resized pictures are stored by width, and values are rounded, so trying to specify these by height leads to problems, especially if one is trying to place many tall, thin images next to each other and match the heights - as I am :-P
Just in case you haven't a clue what I'm getting at, here's an example:
Indeed, but they are separate for a reason :-P I'm making a template to create motorway signs like the one above - so the above would be given by {{Motorway sign|M|1}}. Any ideas? — cBuckley (Talk • Contribs) 11:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Background color of image box
I have a transparent gif image
that does not display correctly on pages with white background. Is there any tag to change the background color of image box? --Nevit17:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
No, and you probably shouldn't try to make it happen using a hack either. It's a GIF - why don't you change the palette of the image so it does show up correctly? Make the while lines some shade of light blue or grey, for example? Shinobu15:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Is there any way to centre short captions on wide images. It can look a bit untidy when the text is sitting on the left hand side.--203.214.91.15211:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Is there a difference in whether the word image is capitalized or not when typing up the syntax? I normally write them as lower case, but someone is going through some articles and capitalizing them. Does this make any difference, or is this unneccessary? Thanks. 25or6to423:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Changing Hue or Color Masking
Is there any kind of syntax that could change the hue of a image, or apply a color mask over a image? This could help with some situation where one can simply change the appearance of a base image to achieve the effect desired instead of uploading new images every time. -- G.S.K.Lee08:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Issue with thumbnails
I have a wiki of my own, but for some time now it has had issues with thumbnails.
Images show up fine in any other situation, but some do not want to show up when I designate them as thumbnails. If this is not the appropriate place to put this, please say so in my user page instead of deleting the comment outright.--Archdeco16:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Imgages as background
Is there any way to add an image as the background in a page?
I haven't noticed any discussion about this. I've been looking at some images that I've uploaded for one page for one reason, such as this one, and thinking that it would be nice to be able to put a cropped version of the image onto another page (eg Bull bar, Ford Falcon, Tunnel) without having to upload several differently cropped versions of the same photo.
Agreed, the ability to crop on a section of an image would be great. That way watermarks and such will still be on original images and the thumbnails won't break copyright. --Jecrell15:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Font size in image caption
I'm making Simple Wiktionary definitions of words with illustrative pictures in thumbnail format. (Example: wind) I'm concerned that the image captions are in too small a font. When I display them, the image caption is in a different font style and slightly smaller print than the regular text on the page. I want readers to notice the image captions because they might assume the caption is just copyright info or something and ignore it, and then they would miss the message of how the picture relates to the definition. I tried making the captions bigger with <big> (Example: touch) and am happy with the way it looks on my browser. But another user says the font size is the same for text and image captions on his browser and advises me not to play with the font size since it will display differently for different people. Is there a way to specify that the font in the image caption is to be the same font as the regular text font on the page, whatever the user has that set to? Thanks. --Coppertwig16:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Hello! Is there any way to include images from external servers (like the html img command) in the Mediawiki software? And to prevent comments :-): I know that this is NOT the way to edit and use Wikimedia pages, I am just testing ways if I could run Mediawiki as a CMS on my site. Thank you in advance! -- 85.212.176.19210:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
How could I add an image from another WiKi without uploading that image again?
For example I want to add an image from an English language wiki article to French language wiki article? Do I need to upload the image again? Or is there an easy way to do the same?
You may include a a link to an image from another namespace by using the interwiki notation — for instance, I can link to an image on the French Wikipedia by using fr:Image:Sadi_Carnot.jpeg. However, if you want to include the actual image, then it should be moved to the namespace where you want to insert the image. This can be done by downloading the image, then visiting the namespace to which you wish to upload the file and uploading the file to that namespace. — cBuckley (Talk • Contribs) 00:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Apart from the incorrect use of the word "namespace", you are quite right. But by far the best way to share an image between multiple wikis is to upload it to the Wikimedia Commons, whence it becomes available to all Wikimedia projects, as though it had been uploaded to all of them at once! - IMSoP00:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
There should be a better solution for this problem. Why do we have to upload the same image to different wikis? I know, Commons (probably) created for this purpose, but it seems to me that most of the contributors upload images to their own wikis. I think there should be a way to connect pictures from different wiki sites for the same articles, say, the same article in German wiki can include a picture from French wiki without uploading the same file locally. I wonder if this is too hard to do ?? --88.238.134.61 (talk) 16:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Multiple Thumbnails on a Line?
Is there any way to specify a row of thumbnail images? I'm trying to clean up the Chmmr article, and that vertical stack of thumbnails at the bottom looks ridiculous. --Clayhalliwell18:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that bandwith is being used unneccesarily by some images. When making thumbnails of large PNG images, they tend to be big, at times a lot bigger than the original. I think bandwith could be saved by adding some extra compression options for thumbnails, like the option to make them jpegs instead of pngs. This also seems to be a problem with some of the image pages from which full size images are accessible. Undeaf04:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Quick fix
Put this in the LocalSettings.php
$wgImageLimits = array (
array(1280,1024),
array(10000,10000) );
See [bug 8858]. No problems if you just use the code that I have given you. Now there are less files in the folder and plus bandwidth is minimized.
Aspect ratio change?
I have some SVG images that I wish to change the aspect ratio on. Is there some way to do this? Gregvw15:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Invisible thumbnails
I've noticed that a lot of articles, like this one are coded to display thumbnails, but the thumbnails don't show. Does anyone know what the fix is? I'm disambiguating and looking at a lot of pages that I could fix if I knew how. --Steven J. Anderson23:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Images to screen width
With <div align="{{{align|left|- padding:1em;padding-top:0.5em;" }}}"> (please point out "unclean" usage, I produced this simply by trial&error), I managed to have an image fitted to screen width. —AldeBaer17:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
What if the image is on the zh, de, etc. other wikipedias
Jidanni
What if the image is on the zh, de, etc. other wikipedias?!
Van helsing
This page is on and applies to the English Wikipedia
Yes, but what if the image is on the zh, de, etc. other wikipedias?!
Please mention in the document what the syntax is to use the image, or mention it is impossible. Don't just be mum on the issue! Jidanni04:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Are the images enlarged or not?
Real size
Example image with its real size.
100px size
Example image with 100px size.
100px size
Example image with 200px size.
I can see enlarged images (at least in the preview).
OK. In the saved page the images are enlarged too (tested in Internet Explorer and Firefox).
--Ajvico07:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
The text on the project page is "100px": Scales the image down to make it 100 pixels wide. Replace any number for 100. If you specify "thumbnail" and a value here, this value will take precedence. If the image is already smaller than your specified value, the image stays at its size.
I think it's not clear that "If the image is already smaller than your specified value, the image stays at its size" only applies when "thumbnail" is used.
At least, I didn't understood such thing when I read it (but I'm spanish, so it could be a misunderstanding).
"border" option seems to have gone away (or broken)
For example, [[Image:Flag of Japan.svg|22px|border]] → . This is a widely used and incredibly useful feature of MediaWiki syntax - what happened? Andrwsc07:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I tried putting my first image into an article today - a pic of USS Card into the Seattle-Tacoma Shipbuilding page. Unfortunately the code won't do what it's supposed to. It seems like it will only obey two commands but not three. Like for example, at the moment I've got it where I want it and the size I want, but it won't display the caption. If I get it to display the caption, I lose the size or the location parameter.
I'm using IE 7, don't know if that makes any difference. But the pics on all the other pages display fine, so why not this one?Gatoclass14:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Resizing of Some GIFs Rendering Poorly; Setting Needs Changing?
The resizing of images for thumbnails generally works great, but for some reason it does not for a small subset of images. This subset seems to be GIF images with large transparent backgrounds, e.g. logos. When they are being resized, some of the foreground is being dropped. This dropping does not occur if you resize in Photoshop. Could it be that a simple change in setting is needed?
Is it possible for one to parse things like |thumb|left and such so that it would be [[Image:Image.jpg|{{{1|}}}|{{{1|}}}]]?
I ask because I am attempting to create a template from this, and I need the image map within the template to be able to be re-sized as the template is used.— DædαlusContribs /Improve08:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
“Unfortunately, it is not possible to specify different text for these two purposes.”
This seems to be out of date. Near as I can tell, an image gets a blank alt="" by default, but you can add an alt=xxx parameter. But the caption serves as alt text when it is not shown, but then if both are specified the alt overrides the caption. Is this correct? —MichaelZ. 2008-12-08 00:23 z
Some images (such as those generated by the {{music}} template) use images as a substitute for characters. In these cases it is more optimal to use size units that are tied to a given font type, such as EM or EX. I'd like to suggest that these units be supported aas well. Thanks. SharkD (talk) 20:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Is this possible? I'd like the text to appear on the left or the right of an image, rather than underneath it. Can anyone tell me how that is possible or if it is? Wikidea15:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
You could create a table in which the image is on one cell and the text of your chouce is in another cell. But it wouldn't be a caption. —AlanBarrett (talk) 22:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
image as background
It is possible that I missed it, but is it possible for text to overlap an image, like the image is a background? Buɡboy52.4 (talk) 02:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Positioning
Why does this version of the article Autobahn show the image of the Swiss network in IE8 (in strict mode) below the section "Speed limits", and in Firefox 3.0.4 also below that section, but overlaying the text of that section? IE7 shows that image as intended below the section "Current density/Switzerland" to the left of the text of that section, as does IE8 in Compatibility View. Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Link
Link works here, but it doesn't work on my mediawiki at work. Does anyone know what extensions or release incorporated this feature?
I don't know of any way to do that within the image syntax. The usual way to fix this problem is to rename one of the images. You can request that one (presumably the English Wikipedia one) be renamed. Eubulides (talk) 15:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Images Aligned Left & Numbered List text
Hi, I have tried to align an image left and to put it in front of a numbered listed.
It clearly seems to be a bug. However, there are several workarounds (apart from positioning the image to the right). One is to construct a simple table which allows more control; I have left my attempt on that page – feel free to revert. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
A recent edit changed "0.75" to "0.78" with the comment "It's not 80% and it's not 75%... it calculates out to 77.777777777777777% or 78%". This calculation is incorrect. What Mediawiki does is take the default thumbnail size (typically 180px), multiply it by 0.75, and then round to the nearest 10. Since 180 × 0.75 is 135, this rounds to 140. Now, it's true that 140/180 is 0.777..., but the actual factor is 0.75, not 0.777.... You can verify this by setting the default thumbnail width to 200px. If you do that, the upright image will be 150px (200 × 0.75), not 160px (200 × 0.777..., rounded to the nearest 10). I've also verified this by reading the Mediawiki source code. I fixed the project page to make this clearer. Eubulides (talk) 06:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I've noticed that certain images don't seem to display correctly when I convert the deprecated {{click}} to the new format. In other words, some images become slightly larger than with the {{click}} template, even though I'm using the same parameters. Does anyone know why this might be happening? --Ixfd64 (talk) 18:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Here is an image which refuses to orient correctly unless the width is over 120px. A picture like this can't therefore be used in a gallery. Is the anomaly a function of width:height ratio? Can it be rectified by inserting additional code? It's occurred with only one of the pics in my gallery of contributions. Cheers Bjenks (talk) 20:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
There was something funky about File:Mcdonalds stratford.jpg. Whatever process was used to rotate it, lost information. I suspect that the rotation procedure created a JPEG image that the Wikimedia software can't grok. Anyway, I installed a version of that image that was rotated without losing info (I used jpegtran), in an attempt to fix the problem. Please feel free to revert if you don't like the result. Your gallery looks OK now, at least to me; but interestingly enough it's not working in this talk page for me right now (a caching problem perhaps?). If the problem persists, I suggest taking it up at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Eubulides (talk) 22:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
This talk page also looks good to me now, so it was just a temporary caching problem after all. Hope you like the results. Eubulides (talk) 22:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
I dips me lid, great guru of daguerreotypic digitalis. The science of such rotation is far beyond my ken. :) Cheers Bjenks (talk) 03:03, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I want to stack several images of different sizes and I want to place the text to the left of the more narrow ones. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Stacking multiple images
I want to stack multiple images. They are different widths and I want them to line up to the left side. Is there any way to do that? Tom Reedy (talk) 00:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Problem with mouseover text when linking
Hi! I need help with changing the text that displays during mouseover when using |link= . I'm new to Wikipedia, but I've been editing a certain browser game's official Wiki for few months. I've now encountered a this problem which is beyond my skills and I hope to find a solution here. So basically, I've created a navigation template for pages on my user namespace. On the template I have used a small image which I have linked to a page, but now the text that appears when I bring my mouse over it is the name of the page and not the one I'd like to be displayed. Is there any way to change this, like using span title or something similar? Here's the template's code if it helps. The file link is right after <div style> tag. Of course I could just lose the link and solve the problem, but I'm also curious if this even can be done.
I've tried pretty much everything, I even made an image map but it stretched the borders of the box so I decided not to use it. I have tried using <span title=""> inside and around the file link and I tried using {{!}} just in case. And just to make sure, it's not a caption I'm trying to make here, I just want a similar effect like when using span title. If the text is not even possible to be changed when linking, I'd like to know that too. ;) I hope you got what I'm trying to ask. Thank you in advance! --Kuhafile (talk) 22:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
That was the very first thing I tried but it didn't work so I figured there must be some different trick to it. But the problem seems to be in our wiki engine, maybe it lacks an extension or something. So there's nothing I can do. Thank you anyway! --Kuhafile (talk) 08:42, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
I have been struggling to re-size images with the 'px' parameter. Only recently discovered that (surprise!) 'frame' disables re-sizing. Which is mentioned under 'frame', but not in the discussion of re-sizing. How about mentioning this under 'px' (the feature it disables)? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:12, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
I see in the archives this was requested before. Would be useful if someone can get this to work. JMK (talk) 08:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
linking thumbnail to full resolution image?
What is the recommended way of creating thumbnails that link directly to the full size image, as opposed to the image description page? Since "thumb" and "link" can't both be defined, I'm guessing someone knows of a good alternative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oayfer (talk • contribs) 18:02, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
File feature request - Defaulting to image description in Commons
It would be very cool and helpful if the File syntax could default the caption (using some parameters/flags) to the image descriptions as defined in commons:Template:Information description field (optionally selecting English description automatically or allowing the user to chose the language). Without this feature, I find adding image descriptions/captions via pipes tedious and in some cases very redundant. Of course, this is for the case where the images are in Commons and use that template, which in the case of Wikipedia are a lot --Codrin.B (talk) 22:14, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
This is an interesting automation idea. It's true that too many images end up without captions, or wrong captions. However, the "magically appearing" text might be confusing to editors, and might prompt them to edit the description at WP or Commons, which would be wrong... Adequate documentation could help, but still, I have my doubts. --Lexein (talk) 02:50, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Feature request: "title=" parameter
Alt text is not universally displayed by default in all browsers (example: Chrome). But Title text seems to be. Additional image "mouseover" information would improve the reader experience. In the simplest case, if the alt= text is copied to title=, then all readers could see the extended description offered to vision impaired readers. If there's a better place to discuss this, please say so... --Lexein (talk) 02:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
It seems to me that image floating is supported by {{Css Image Crop}}.
{{Css Image Crop
|Image = The Name of the image.
|bSize = The Base Image size (the image we are cropping on)
|cWidth = Crop Image Width in pixels
|cHeight = Crop image Height in pixels
|oTop = Offset Top in pixels
|oLeft = Offset Left in pixels
|Location = 'right', 'left', 'center' or 'none'. Determines placement of the image on the page.
Defaults to 'right' when description is provided (as is default for thumb images).
When description is blank, location on left (as is default for non-thumbs).
|Description = Description (will render out using thumbnail class)
}}
Yes, it does seem to float against text (although it doesn't seem to like the <pre> box above). Not sure why I couldn't get it to work before. Anyhow, it's still incompatible with {{Infobox}}, passing excess wikimarkup from {{Css Image Crop}} as it does. Would it be better to simply create a derivative (cropped) image in a new file, or is what I'm trying to achieve useful? nagualdesign (talk) 00:23, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Size specification and caption incompatible?
Am I understanding correctly that the caption attribute will not work in these cases?:
when the image size is specified
when the "frame" attribute is not invoked?
That is, must there be a frame for the caption to display? I can see why this might be required. But I don't get why I can't both specify a pixel width and have a caption. Can someone please clue me in? Thanks in advance. Erictalk00:46, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
This has 100px and frameThis has 100px and thumb
Specifying a size doesn't affect whether a caption will show or not. For displaying a caption, the essential item is either frame or thumb. The difference between these are that frame ignores the size parameter: it will always display at the image's "natural" maximum size (this is shown on the file description page: for the image at right, the file description page shows "173 × 21 pixels" so it's 173px wide); whereas thumb respects the size parameter, and if omitted it will use the default size for thumbnail images (220px) or the "natural" maximum size, whichever is smaller. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:53, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification, Rr! So, if you have a minute and are curious, would you mind telling me if you see a cleaner way to put a "caption" under the frameless image here?: User:Eric --Erictalk16:51, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
You've probably noticed that articles with infoboxes often have a caption under the infobox image, but the image isn't framed; for example, Reading Southern railway station. The infobox disguises the technique, but it's essentially the same as the method that you've used: there is a table, and the image and caption occupy the full width of two consecutive rows. I don't know of another way of doing it, unless two or more images are shown next to each other - for example at User:Redrose64#About me where there is a {{multiple image}}. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:59, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
What I have is a page with a fairly long infobox down the right hand side. I'd like to mix text and pictures in the left hand space. It's OK floating left, because left of column is left of page, but floating right puts the image below the infobox rather than to the immediate left of it. Is there any way round, or do I live with it? Johnmperry (talk) 06:51, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
I've never seen a right-floated image to the left of an infobox, only below, so I guess that's the way it always behaves. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:42, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Jimbo Wales
Wales in January 2011
Born
(1966-08-07) August 7, 1966 (age 58)
It can be done with a right-aligned table, but that has several drawbacks. For one, the white space is not properly filled with text because the table forms a rectangle the size of the combined objects. In this example, if Jimbo's infobox were it's real size, there would be considerable white space to its left below the example image. You can see this effect by sharply reducing the width of your browser window when viewing this page. Generally (and trivially) speaking, if there is not enough room in an article to accommodate many images, the article's text need to be expanded or images removed. Sometimes a gallery can help, but mostly a surfeit of images doesn't improve an article's encyclopedic value. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:20, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
We at WV are working on a main page redesign
The primary proposal is here [3]. The difficulty is that we need the image to stay on the page at different screen sizes. Anyway to do this? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:05, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Changing an image in the same box / frame
Is there discussion elsewhere on the following please, or syntax I can use to change the image in a box on the same page by selecting two or three links / buttons? For example I'm working on a Portal for the new Welsh Coast Path [here], which has a map of all 8 sub paths. I think it would be wonderful if a second map could be loaded and viewed instead of this one, showing the towns along the path; you can see the link is there, but alas, it opens a whole new window rather than replacing the Paths image with the towns image. All images would be the same size, of course. Any suggestions or pointers please? Feel free to edit on my namespace, should you wish to experiment or correct! Llywelyn2000 (talk) 13:37, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 11 October 2014: Clean up syntax statement to make more readable
It would make it a lot more readable and understandable. Bolded+Italicized would indicate that you substitute strings into those positions, while regular font means you put down what you see.
This has been possible for a couple of years now (examples at right). But this is the English Wikipedia: are we likely to want to display such images using non-English text? --Redrose64 (talk) 16:11, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
non-uniform scaling possible? i.e. not keeping the aspect ratio
is it possible to scale images without keeping the aspect ratio? The following images should have a width of 70 and a height of 200:
@Mrazvan22: The only way is to alter the image on your computer and upload a different image (with a different file name). However, the numbers you specified don't work at all with that image. The current aspect ratio (width divided by height) is about 1.28 and you are proposing an aspect ratio of 0.35. The enormous difference results in a highly distorted image. ―Mandruss☎11:39, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
thanks a lot Mandruss! I was afraid that was the case. It would be good to add functionality for non-uniform scaling in the future. I need it quite often when I make photo montages, so maybe I'll code it up when I have the time. And sure, the numbers I gave are just as an example, I wasn't meaning to use them in practice. Razvan Marinescu (talk) 11:52, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Animated GIF Thumbs
Thumbnailing an animated GIF does not result in an error, so there is no warning, but the animated GIF is not processed. Instead the original animated GIF is shipped, and whether the animated GIF is subsequently scaled to fit the allotted space is down to the capabilities of the receiving browser.
I don't if this is the right place to ask this, but I just noticed that the "thumb" parameter for an animated GIF somehow prevents Mat Sadler's Deanimator plugin from working. Safari extensions themselves use Javascript, but I don't see how the Deanimator one works from just looking at the code. Jimw338 (talk) 07:31, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
px guidance discrepancy
WP:IMGSIZE, part of a policy page, strongly discourages the use of px for thumbnails. This is for very good reason, as px defeats the user preference setting for default thumbnail size. Why does this guideline make no mention of that? ―Mandruss☎23:26, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Because folks are scared there would be another riot?
I've confirmed at that page that I agree with the proposed change of text to "If link is used with thumb, the linked image should generally be a full, uncropped image from which the thumbnail was cropped, or a full document from which thumbnail was a single page, or crop of a single page." and I do agree it would be nice if others could comment too.. BushelCandle (talk) 02:36, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Needs move to "Extended file syntax"
It is incorrect for this to be called extended "image" syntax, because in the past year or so it seems the developers decided to do away with the use of Image: and Sound: and Video: and now have replaced all three with the generic File:
And besides this document already includes sections on video and sounds so it isn't about just images (anymore). Need to update the article name to match the current situation. This would then become a legacy redirect to the new article name.
Mmmm, that requested move seems entirely logical to me.
Is it just that nobody helpful with time on their hands reads this page, or is there a subtle reason (that neither of us have imagined) why, after more than 6 years this obvious change has not been made? I'll make the move and see what crawls out of the woodwork to object... BushelCandle (talk) 02:27, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Later: I can't make the requested move because there is no "Move" button option visible. I suspect that page moves are limited to admins only (this is an important page)... BushelCandle (talk) 02:40, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Image placement dilemma
Hello. Just to note, I previously queried this at WP:HD, but the replier referred me here for a better solution to this issue. The trouble I have experienced pertains to the positioning of a thumbnail at First Lord of the Treasury. The first edit I made to the article two days ago made the article look like this, which was not helpful. I since moved the image to just below the infoboxes on the right side of the article, but I would prefer if the text could flow around the image within the #Official residence section. I am not sure how to remedy this. Thanks.--Nevé–selbert17:30, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Images should be placed in the most relevant section. If this causes layout issues, {{stack begin}}/{{stack end}} may be used to group boxes together. To force a table to go below left-floated objects, style it clear:left;. It's not a good idea to force image sizes. In summary: these edits. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:37, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
@Redrose64: Sorry to bother you again, but could you have a look at Ronald Reagan#Early life? There is an extremely large white gap above the next section, and I'm unsure how to fix this (I have tried implementing the templates, but again to no avail.) Perhaps, the sidebar should be moved somewhere else. Thanks again.--Nevé–selbert05:50, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Some people have an allergic aversion to any image opposite any other image or infobox, but it's nonsense if you're careful. Take a look. EEng06:05, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
You may wire my fee to the usual account. It depends how you interpret WP:SANDWICH's injunction to "avoid sandwiching text between two images that face each other, or between an image and infobox, navigation template, or similar". Some people interpret that to forbid any text between an box/image on the left and a box/image on the right, regardless of the boxes/images widths. But I interpret it to mean the text shouldn't be "sandwiched" in the sense of being squeezed into an unattractively narrow column because the total width of the boxes/images on either side takes up too much of the horizontal width. In this case both the images (on the left) and the box (on the right) are relatively narrow, so it looks fine.
I'm assuming you have a wide-screen display. Notice that if you simulate an older, narrower display by narrowing the window, something very satisfying happens, in that the images get forced down to the point where they're not opposite the infobox anymore anyway, so that either way there's no unsightly narrow column of text. The same technique is used at Widener_Library#Parallel_classification_systems_and_dual_catalogs and at Phineas_Gage#Accident. EEng07:32, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
@EEng: Hi again. I've replaced the thumbnails with {{Multiple image}} to have the two images conjoined, but the placement is not where it should be. Not sure exactly how to work this one out. I've tried stacking, but again to no avail.--Nevé–selbert19:42, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
While that's strictly true, but removing the /clear/ merely revealed another problem, which still needed solving. EEng21:54, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Infobox images/borders
I couldn't find anything regarding the use of {{!}}border for infoboxes which do not have a border = field. Nothing at MOS:IMAGES or MOS:INFOBOX to explain it. So, I once saw an admin insert {{!}}border to a whitespace infobox image, but where did that switch come from? Is there a template or MOS for it? Despite how mysterious it is to me, I do enjoy using it wherever I see images in need of it (except for {{Infobox album}}, which rightfully does make use of a border = field). Should I keep using it or try something else? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 23:36, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
@Mac Dreamstate: The {{!}} template emits a pipe character | which is not treated as a separator by the template parser, so it's passed through from the infobox as a pipe. So {{!}}border has the effect of putting |border into an image specification, as described at WP:EIS#Border. Use this trick sparingly - only when the image is intentionally rectangular, has a white background, and no other method exists. Infoboxes with an appropriate parameter are few, for example it was added to {{Infobox album}} with this edit. It's also provided with {{infobox book}}, {{infobox film}} and {{Infobox newspaper}} and some others. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:12, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
The technique for adding support for |border=yes (or similar) will vary between infoboxes, as they don't all have the same parameters (or underlying code) for images. For any given infobox, it's best to propose the change at its talk page, particularly for something as widely-used as {{Infobox person}} - this one would be discussed at Template talk:Infobox person. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:42, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
The current infobox border, whether invoked using border=yes or {{!}}border, is much too light now. On my LED display it's barely perceptible. Could it be made to look like it did a year ago? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 17:49, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
I'd like to request a new feature that allow a user to flip horizontally or mirror an image without having to upload a separate file that has been manually edited. I understand that CSS supports this functionality but it would be extremely helpful if it were built in the Wiki image syntax as it does not work well with thumb nail viewing. Thank you.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:03, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
We'll in journalism it is considered a faux pas to place an image so that it faces off-screen or away from the text. Because of this users are forced to choose a less desirable image that faces the correct way, alternate the image to the other side, or face the image off-screen.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:58, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
@TriiipleThreat: There is nothing that can be done here. If you want a new option in the image syntax, that would require a new feature in the MediaWiki software, in which case please file a request at phabricator:. If you want a new tool (like the existing tool at commons: that marks an image for rotation, to be actioned by a bot), I would suggest that the place to ask for advice would be c:COM:GVP. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:26, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
I thought you'd say that. The problem is that there are very few images that can be reversed without creating a false portrayal. People certainly shouldn't be reversed -- see MOS:IMGLOC. EEng00:47, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
It doesn't just apply to people but use for people is justified if they don't have distinguishing features like scars or birthmarks.--01:30, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
No, it's not. Faces and bodies are rarely symmetric and you should not falsify what the reader sees to satisfy some picayune "rule". If you want, move the image to the opposite margin. EEng02:27, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Well, not never[4] but that's an extraordinary circumstance. I suppose it might be OK to reverse a bacterium or an unidentified dancer (say, to match a pose seen in another image) but even there I'm not sure. EEng11:03, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Again, this applies to more than just people and the opposite margin is not always an option. It's about drawing the readers attention towards the text, not away from it.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:25, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
People, dogs, horses, cars, cliffs, boats, doesn't matter. We're not going to falsify images because of this preoccupation with "facing". Readers will find the text despite their attention being deflected. EEng12:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Images are already freely transformed on Wikipedia, this would just save a few steps. But it doesn't sound like I am going to convince you, so I'll withdraw my request and just let the status quo remain.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:28, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
You can do this with CSS. Certainly it might be helpful for some images (e.g. an arrow) but in those few cases it's easier and more reliable to just save two copies of the image. Example (won't work on older browsers, and so not really advisable):
Is there a way to define the default video quality, other than setting the thumbnail size? I would like to display the video in a small frame but still with a high resolution as some details cannot be read otherwise. --Signimu (talk) 14:16, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Not sure, but the solution may lie in the |link= parameter, which allows you to display one file in the thumb but actually take readers to a different file when they click. I use it sometimes to display a cropped closeup in the thumb but show readers the full image when they click -- for example the first two images (the map and the railroad tracks) at [5]. EEng20:24, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Ah thank you for the suggestion, that may be useful indeed, but my purpose is more to show directly a high-resolution video when the reader clicks on the play button, without having to follow a link. My typical use case would be like the video tutorial here, which is unreadable even in full screen if the user is not pressing the gear icon to set a higher resolution, as by default the video player selects the quality not based on the user's internet speed but on the thumbnail size :-/ --Signimu (talk) 21:12, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
To clarify, I mean it's weird that even when the video is enlarged in full screen, the resolution is not automatically changed to a higher quality. For a long time it fooled me into thinking there was no better quality available, and I am a computer scientist, so I expect most readers will be fooled as well An alternative solution is to make videos with big text that is readable even with a scaled-down thumbnail size, but it's not possible for all videos (such as the one I link above, since the text size is the one on Wikipedia as shown on a typical computer screen). --Signimu (talk) 21:15, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Now that I see that the file at issue is an ogv, you're right that |link= doesn't help -- in fact my experiments suggest that |link= doesn't do anything with an ogv (though I didn't experiment exhaustively). EEng23:48, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Should I open a ticket on WMFlabs maybe? To propose a parameter so that we can force a default quality explicitly? --Signimu (talk) 00:17, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
I am not joking when I say you'd be lucky to see such a parameter become available anywhere between 3 and 5 years from now, if ever. I'd suggest you start by just waiting here a week or so to see if some image-syntax experts show up. EEng06:41, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Floating objet?
What is an visual floating object in markup languages, as HTML?. There is not a Wikipedia or Help page, section or definition about. Here there is a good guide, from W3C:
MinervaNeue does this sort of thing all the time; tables in particular are liable to get quite broken by Minerva if you've tried anything complex.
However, in this specific case, something weird is happening; all the images appear to have vertical-align: middle on WP:EIS, but if I copy the same content to the sandbox, it works and all have the correct vertical-align set in a style parameter. I'll raise a bug on Phabricator. User:GKFXtalk08:15, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Following the creation of a Wikipedia template, I just realized a problem with mobile positioning.
Indeed, when I insert an image by specifying a vertical-alignment "text-top", it is not reflected in the "style" attribute of the span allowing lazy-loading of the image in the mobile version of Wikipedia.
@Remontees: This was fixed on August 25 and seems to be working okay now. Do check the rest of the talk page before making your own post as this was already being discussed above. User:GKFXtalk19:53, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks! That looks beautiful; I was hoping for an easy fix rather than hand the work over to someone else, but there probably won't be many times we need to do something like this. — kwami (talk) 08:26, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
I think your best bet would be WP:TemplateStyles to set background-image: none on .mw-tmh-player.video > .mw-tmh-play:not(:hover). The last part of that makes sure the play button is able to reappear on hover. User:GKFXtalk11:42, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
It is for german wikipedia where that template is missing. Importing that template (causing sure a lot of discussion) is too much effort for a very few (maybe 3) videos/images. I was hoping there might be some undocumented parameter. However, thanks. --Wurgl (talk) 09:34, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
![]](/wiki/File:Motorway_Right.svg){kind=small}
Nature...
. This is a widely used and incredibly useful feature of MediaWiki syntax - what happened? Andrwsc 07:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
that is the size you want and does not generate an unwanted "title=" in the tooltip or alt text. Eubulides (talk) 08:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
that says "Woo hoo!" when you mouse over it. Eubulides (talk) 23:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
An alternative solution is to make videos with big text that is readable even with a scaled-down thumbnail size, but it's not possible for all videos (such as the one I link above, since the text size is the one on Wikipedia as shown on a typical computer screen). --Signimu (talk) 21:15, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
![[1]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/8e/Techcrunch.gif/100px-Techcrunch.gif){kind=link}
![[2]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/b/b5/MahaloAlpha_SiteLogo.gif/100px-MahaloAlpha_SiteLogo.gif){kind=link}
