Hello,
many work is put into images, and a lot of places use thumbnails in the article and a [[Media:...|larger version]] link to a big version. This requires two uploads and some complicated code, especialy if the image and its caption should be right aligned floats.
I'd like to propose to make the software handle this frequent task. The image syntax would be extended to provide an options field. This can be done backwards compatible and similar to the options for table cells:
[[Image:Leopard.jpg|options|descriptive caption]]
Options are:
* thumbnail to generate a right aligned thumbnail of the image, using the caption text as image caption, adding an enlarge icon to the image and a [more] link to the big image * thumbnail-left same as above, but left aligned. * left, right makes the image a left/right aligned float, without a caption, without resizing it. (e.g. for use on pages like http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Nebel ) * ___px renders the image inline, just like the classicale [[Image:, but resizes it to ___ pixels width. Height is calculated automatically. [[Image:Leopard.jpg|250px|Leopard liegt auf einem Ast]] could be used to generate the thumbnail at http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopard
The thumbnails are stored on disk and are only generated if no thumbnail for that size exists already.
Examples can be found at
http://jeluf.mormo.org/testwiki/wiki.phtml?title=Extended_image_syntax
The stylesheets are proof-of-concept, help on layout questions is welcome.
The code implementing the above is attached as a patch.
Best regards,
JeLuF
Jens Frank wrote:
Examples can be found at
http://jeluf.mormo.org/testwiki/wiki.phtml?title=Extended_image_syntax
That's pretty brilliant! Thanks for making this :-)
Just one little thing. Could you increase the margin from 0.5em to 2em? So far I've always used 15px, but now that I think about it, using px is really dumb.
Timwi
Jens-
good work!
Small bug: On the image page, the image is a self-link. Go to http://jeluf.mormo.org/testwiki/wiki.phtml?title=Image:Westminstpalace.jpg & click on the image.
- thumbnail to generate a right aligned thumbnail of the image, using the caption text as image caption, adding an enlarge icon to the image and a [more] link to the big image
Please get rid of the icon, or put it -under- the images (right-aligned with the caption, perhaps). The [more] link also is redundant, we should either have the icon or the [more] link, but not both (the icon can have [more] as an ALT text). It was probably hard to embed the icon, but I really think this behavior should be turned off ASAP -- works of art should not be obscured by zoom icons just because we assume the lower right corner is "not important".
Could the "thumbnail" option accept a width parameter? Personally I would probably always want to specify my own width, depending on the context. But I would like the zoom link (*below* the image) and the caption to be included regardless, thus a "thumbnail + width" combination would be most useful to me. I also think "thumbnail" should be shortened to "thumb". Neither term makes much sense for those not in the know already.
It would be very neat to have an option to use the image page content itself as a caption -- tricky to code though. We may also want to think about making image pages look less hacky -- with a human-readable title and the image history somewhat more separated from the image content.
Regards,
Erik
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 01:13:00PM +0100, Erik Moeller wrote:
Jens-
good work!
Thanks :-)
Small bug: On the image page, the image is a self-link. Go to http://jeluf.mormo.org/testwiki/wiki.phtml?title=Image:Westminstpalace.jpg & click on the image.
I was lazy and used makeImageLink for this. Will fix this tonight.
- thumbnail to generate a right aligned thumbnail of the image, using the caption text as image caption, adding an enlarge icon to the image and a [more] link to the big image
Please get rid of the icon, or put it -under- the images (right-aligned with the caption, perhaps). The [more] link also is redundant, we should either have the icon or the [more] link, but not both (the icon can have [more] as an ALT text). It was probably hard to embed the icon, but I really think this behavior should be turned off ASAP -- works of art should not be obscured by zoom icons just because we assume the lower right corner is "not important".
wasn't hard, just one call to ImageMagick's composite. The first version of the code used an icon below the image, like e.g. at http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/weltraum/0,1518,280633,00.html
tarquin said he wouldn't like an icon but prefer text. Any opinions?
If we'd use an icon, anyone has a nice one?
Could the "thumbnail" option accept a width parameter? Personally I would probably always want to specify my own width, depending on the context. But I would like the zoom link (*below* the image) and the caption to be included regardless, thus a "thumbnail + width" combination would be most useful to me. I also think "thumbnail" should be shortened to "thumb". Neither term makes much sense for those not in the know already.
Specifying width for thumbnails is not hard to do. Do we want to have this from a "corporate identity" point of view? I think I'll implement it and let the community have a policy whether and when this should be used.
Aliasing thumb or thumbnail is easy, thanks to MagicWord class. It can even be localized ("Daumennagel" *g*) since it's defined in Language.php.
It would be very neat to have an option to use the image page content itself as a caption -- tricky to code though. We may also want to think about making image pages look less hacky -- with a human-readable title and the image history somewhat more separated from the image content.
I had the vision of the image page containing much more info/text than the caption, and the caption might be different for different articles. (say, Leopard.jpg being linked from [[Leopard]] and [[Predator]])
The image page layout is an issue, though. Currently, it's mostly used to state the copyright status of an image. Options:
* Have a separate "Show big picture and nice caption" page, having an own article in a separate namespace * Add a new field to the table, 'caption', that's used as a caption, the current field will be used for copyright status. Upload page should ask for "Copyright status" in a new field, perhaps assisted by a drop down box containing predefined values like "Pre 1920", "PD since from US gov", "Took the photo myself and release it to the GFDL", "... the PD". And make this meta data available on a separate page or (maybe user option) at the images pages bottom.
We have many photos that neither state their source nor what they show.
Regards,
JeLuF
Jens-
wasn't hard, just one call to ImageMagick's composite. The first version of the code used an icon below the image, like e.g. at http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/weltraum/0,1518,280633,00.html
I like that much better.
tarquin said he wouldn't like an icon but prefer text. Any opinions?
With the [edit] and the [hide/show] links, I think we could really do with an icon here and there. The mangifying glass is almost universally recognized, and an ALT and TITLE tag could be further used to convey the meaning.
If we'd use an icon, anyone has a nice one?
A friend of mine made this: http://scireview.de/be/i2.gif (looks best on a dark background.)
Specifying width for thumbnails is not hard to do. Do we want to have this from a "corporate identity" point of view?
I think so -- it's most important that individual pages are consistent, not that the entire project maintains a single layout standard. Having flexibility here avoids situation where text becomes unreadable and a page is not understood because the explanatory image is too small.
I had the vision of the image page containing much more info/text than the caption, and the caption might be different for different articles. (say, Leopard.jpg being linked from [[Leopard]] and [[Predator]])
Yes, what I meant is that in cases where this is -not- true, I would like to be optionally able to transclude the caption from the image page (e.g. "|loadcaption"). Right now we have a lot of image pages that are redundant with the pages that include them; furthermore, showing the image page content this way would increase the visibility of this text, which is often neglected.
The image page layout is an issue, though. Currently, it's mostly used to state the copyright status of an image. Options:
- Have a separate "Show big picture and nice caption" page, having an own article in a separate namespace
That would be confusing, because some people might never figure out the difference between the two types of image pages. Could lead to "Why am I here?" reactions.
- Add a new field to the table, 'caption', that's used as a caption, the current field will be used for copyright status. Upload page should ask for "Copyright status" in a new field, perhaps assisted by a drop down box containing predefined values like "Pre 1920", "PD since from US gov", "Took the photo myself and release it to the GFDL", "... the PD". And make this meta data available on a separate page or (maybe user
option) at the images pages bottom.
I think that we only need an additional integer field for the copyright status, and one of the status values would be "see caption". For complex cases, having the explanation in the (extended) caption seems appropriate to me.
We have many photos that neither state their source nor what they show.
That's very true. Even for fair use, at the very least the source should be stated.
Regards,
Erik
On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 16:05:00 +0100, Erik Moeller wrote:
tarquin said he wouldn't like an icon but prefer text. Any opinions?
With the [edit] and the [hide/show] links, I think we could really do with an icon here and there. The mangifying glass is almost universally recognized, and an ALT and TITLE tag could be further used to convey the meaning.
This could be done with css- a scalable image has a special class attached that can be used to add a icon (even on top of the image) or text (the latter would require js), all changeable with the css skin.
Gabriel Wicke
It should be considered that I recently threw in an "image location and caption style" feature in form of the table markup.
{| class=rimage
will align the image to the right, select a smaller font for the caption etc. Maybe we should focus on the thumbnail capability here.
<brag> Too bad my Nupedia software isn't runnig anymore, it had thumbnail, normal, high quality, and "figure only" view, with SVG support (SVG plugin required), and even *different* captions (brief for thumbnail, extended for normal/HQ/figure-only), and even hidden text for the "alt" tag to be read to the blind... </brag>
Magnus
Gabriel Wicke wrote:
On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 16:05:00 +0100, Erik Moeller wrote:
tarquin said he wouldn't like an icon but prefer text. Any opinions?
With the [edit] and the [hide/show] links, I think we could really do with an icon here and there. The mangifying glass is almost universally recognized, and an ALT and TITLE tag could be further used to convey the meaning.
This could be done with css- a scalable image has a special class attached that can be used to add a icon (even on top of the image) or text (the latter would require js), all changeable with the css skin.
Gabriel Wicke
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 09:49:48PM +0100, Magnus Manske wrote:
It should be considered that I recently threw in an "image location and caption style" feature in form of the table markup.
{| class=rimage
will align the image to the right, select a smaller font for the caption etc. Maybe we should focus on the thumbnail capability here.
I just tried to test this. It didn't work. After some searching, I noticed that these classes are defined only for the wikistandard.css. cologneblue.css and nostalgia.css don't have them.
<brag> Too bad my Nupedia software isn't runnig anymore, it had thumbnail, normal, high quality, and "figure only" view, with SVG support (SVG plugin required), and even *different* captions (brief for thumbnail, extended for normal/HQ/figure-only), and even hidden text for the "alt" tag to be read to the blind... </brag>
<nag> Why didn't you implement this in phase II ? I wouldn't have to code all night long and read all this strange PHP code if it would have been available already ... </nag> ;-)
Regards,
JeLuF
Jens Frank wrote:
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 09:49:48PM +0100, Magnus Manske wrote:
It should be considered that I recently threw in an "image location and caption style" feature in form of the table markup.
{| class=rimage
will align the image to the right, select a smaller font for the caption etc. Maybe we should focus on the thumbnail capability here.
I just tried to test this. It didn't work. After some searching, I noticed that these classes are defined only for the wikistandard.css. cologneblue.css and nostalgia.css don't have them.
That's why I suggested to include several stylesheets with the article. At least, a "common" one, and the actual skin stylesheet.
Or would that be a problem somehow?
Magnus
On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 09:46:53 +0100, Magnus Manske wrote:
Or would that be a problem somehow?
+1 It's only one additional request. The more is done in css the more complex stylesheets will get, this will simplify updating a lot.
Gabriel Wicke
Jens Frank wrote:
I just tried to test this. It didn't work. After some searching, I noticed that these classes are defined only for the wikistandard.css. cologneblue.css and nostalgia.css don't have them.
Our stylesheets are a terrible mess. Once I get MediaWiki working on my PC, I'll make a few short-term fixes, pending our implementation of Smarty templates.
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 10:39:21PM +0000, tarquin wrote:
Jens Frank wrote:
I just tried to test this. It didn't work. After some searching, I noticed that these classes are defined only for the wikistandard.css. cologneblue.css and nostalgia.css don't have them.
Our stylesheets are a terrible mess. Once I get MediaWiki working on my PC, I'll make a few short-term fixes, pending our implementation of Smarty templates.
That sounds good, what can I do to help you set up MediaWiki?
JeLuF
Jens Frank wrote:
Our stylesheets are a terrible mess. Once I get MediaWiki working on my PC, I'll make a few short-term fixes, pending our implementation of Smarty templates.
That sounds good, what can I do to help you set up MediaWiki?
Rewrite http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Running_MediaWiki_on_Windows so it's idiot-proof :)
I am currently having trouble understanding that "c:/playpen/" is meant to correspond to on my HD.
On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 05:30:40 +0100, Jens Frank wrote:
The thumbnails are stored on disk and are only generated if no thumbnail for that size exists already.
Hmm- is this done into an nfs-mount shared across the Apaches or is there some other replication mechanism? Otherwise it will be impossible to distribute the load between several machines.
Gabriel Wicke
Jens Frank wrote:
I'd like to propose to make the software handle this frequent task. The image syntax would be extended to provide an options field. This can be done backwards compatible and similar to the options for table cells:
[[Image:Leopard.jpg|options|descriptive caption]]
Examples can be found at
http://jeluf.mormo.org/testwiki/wiki.phtml?title=Extended_image_syntax
Oh, another thing. Could we change "more" to "zoom" or perhaps "full-size"? I believe the primary function of the link is to enlarge the image, not to provide "more" information.
Timwi
wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org