User talk:Paper9oll

Status: 🔴 ^[?]

Committed identity: 0de937202d344a1ff750e4a22ad4cbd81b224c6550f10e765abb306e3b377d78c1fbe634497f1ed3a69a74caccfa62807438a29aa3623acb53062bdf2941e62d is a SHA-512 commitment to this user's real-life identity.

⚠️ Attention editors

Please ensure you:

1. are cooperative, civil, and respectful.

2. have the ability to read English well enough to avoid misinterpretation and/or miscommunication.

Do note that your discussion will be rolled back if you fail to meet the above requirements.

Any forms of false accusations and/or personal attacks and/or harrassment will be escalated to an Administrator immediately.

Archived discussion: 1 • 2 • 3 • 4 • 5 • 6 • 7 • 8 • 9 • 10 • 11 • 12 • 13 • 14 • 15 • 16 • 17 • 18 • 19

This talk page is automatically^[?] archived by Lowercase sigmabot III every 24 hours. Threads that are stale will be automatically archived.

Infobox image scaling

Hey, looks like your script is increasing the infobox image scaling by 15% past default on every page it is run on. This isn't ideal - infobox images are set at a certain scaling at the template level for a reason, and the scaling should only be modified if there is a practical reason to do so, not programatically in every infobox the script touches.

If you personally find the thumbnails to be too small on your screen size you can modify your own thumbnail size at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering in the "Files" section.

Thanks! RachelTensions (talk) 12:53, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, only based on the condition that if image_size=250px exists then it will update to image_upright=1.15 I don't find it (220px aka 1; empty) small nor too small but ... anyway the same can be said for "modify your own thumbnail size" for the opposite of small. — 🧧🍊 Paper9oll 🍊🧧 (🔔 • 📝) 12:55, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think it's necessary to increase the scaling on most infobox images past default... it seems like there are large chunks of Korean celebrities that have had their size increased for no apparent reason, which makes them inconsistent with all other bio articles. RachelTensions (talk) 13:08, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A meh 30px isn't any "huge" nor big deal. Neither does the Infobox's documentation nor MOS's upright discouraging such usage. I do find it an improvement as it covers up the useless spacing on both sides of an image (more noticable on portrait ones) in the Infobox hence maybe IAR even though there isn't any R to even I to begin with. — 🧧🍊 Paper9oll 🍊🧧 (🔔 • 📝) 13:39, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with RachelTensions. Increasing the width is arbitrary and inconsistent with broader person ibox style. For a reader, this widening appears to be arbitrarily limited to K-pop artist articles, and raises the question of editor favoritism (which was my interpretation when I first encountered this). — Goszei (talk) 18:13, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Define the purpose of |image_upright= existence in the context of {{Infobox person}} then. Also, I don't appreciate the statement of "raises the question of editor favoritism" regardless of the intention being direct or indirect. — 🧧🍊 Paper9oll 🍊🧧 (🔔 • 📝) 19:05, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mostly see that parameter used when an image is narrow and needs to be reduced in height, or when an image is in a landscape ratio and needs to be widened. When an image is roughly 3:4 in ratio, it isn't typically used. Regarding the other part, I am not at all accusing you of showing favoritism, but simply pointing out that readers could easily think this after seeing inconsistent use of larger images. — Goszei (talk) 20:11, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, I observed the opposite of what you've observed instead regardless I'm not sure how is this param existence not an arbitrary application to being with. — 🧧🍊 Paper9oll 🍊🧧 (🔔 • 📝) 20:14, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where else do you see regular widening of ibox images to upright=1.15? I've only noticed this as a "standard" on K-pop articles. — Goszei (talk) 20:23, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

East Asia articles. And what I'm meant by "an arbitrary application to being with" is a combination of your observation and mine observation hence its purpose is open to different interpretation and usages hence there's bound to be inconsistency regardless. Also, there isn't any scope to creep on hence I'm not sure what exactly is this rather intense discussion even for to even being with. — 🧧🍊 Paper9oll 🍊🧧 (🔔 • 📝) 20:27, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the point is that it's just not necessary and is inconsistent with the rest of Wikipedia. Part of the point of infobox templates is so they're standardized and consistent across the project. To arbitrarily increase the scaling of infobox images because you find it aesthetically pleasing goes against the spirit of consistency, and then reverting when the sizes are set back to default just reinforces it.

Perhaps you could bring the issue up at Template talk:Infobox person and propose the default thumbnail size be increased across the board; maybe it is time to have a discussion on increasing the default size of infobox images to reflect more modern design aesthetics. In that case it'd be consistent. RachelTensions (talk) 00:45, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The consistency doesn't just lies on increasing, it's also as stated/observed lies on decreasing as well, hence overall it's arbitrarily regardless of aesthetically or spirit of something. Foo can set back to default sizing from 0.75, Bar reverting back is the same logic. Likewise, Foo can set back to default sizing from 1.15, Bar reverting back is the same logic. No matter, how yall wanted to coin it, |image_upright= is still arbitrarily application with varying degree of open-ended interpretation, which was the whole point that I kept on emphasizing on if it wasn't clear enough already. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 04:40, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't entirely understand what you mean, but what I'm getting at is that it's just unnecessary to modify the scaling at all (either up or down) unless there is an actual, functional reason, rather than a purely aesthetic choice.

Just because the functionality is there doesn't mean it should be used without reason. RachelTensions (talk) 16:53, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]