Commons:Deletion requests/Template:LargeImage2

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Template:LargeImage2

We already have {{LargeImage}} and it already sticks out by being the only red template on image description pages. This is restarting an arms-race for the users' attention, resulting in cluttered and confusing description pages.

All bold is not good from a typography standpoint. Two images in the template is two to many. Look at the {{tl|information} family, it is kept clean. The template takes up too much space and pushes the image description completely out of view. Sorry, but this is a case of too much is too much.

Having two templates for the exact same purpose is just inconsistent, and inconsistent is bad for the user. Commons description pages are already packed with "information". This does not help. It is a step in the wrong direction. --Dschwen (talk) 21:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, glad you actually mentioned why this was made and gave links to that. The purpose of this was due to a concern at the English Wikipedia's Featured Picture nomination for File:Messier_81_HST.jpg, where one of the reviewers basically crashed his browser trying to view it. The concern is the link to the flash image viewer (and non-flash one) is very obscure, and not at all obvious to a casual browser that clicking that image could mean crashing their browser. The example image is 343 megapixels. The alternative LargeImage template was an attempted compromise instead of uploading a scaled down alt to make it less likely IP users would crash their browsers by trying to view it. {{LargeImage}} in my view is NOT bold enough to indicate that possibility to the end user, and the alternative flash/non-flash image browser should be more accessible. Maybe this isn't the best solution, it was a quick hatchet job as an example of what we could do instead of uploading scaled down courtesy images, which is the worst option. A warning that clicking an image could result in browser crash or worse needs to be more then one little line of text and a pink background is all I'm saying. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 21:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

And to add, this probably isn't the best venue for this, Village Pump probably is, since this is a proposal basically to make the template more bold. If you read the FPC link above for that image you'll clearly see why it was made and was clearly an example. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 21:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

There will always be people who screw up, no matter how bold, how blinking, how big you make the announcements. This is not the point. It boils down to an arms race. You might say the license is even more important because re-users might miss it and commit a license violation, with a distracting big template on top we'd have to make the license template bigger and bolder too so that it does not get overshadowed. This is detrimental to the clarity of the image description pages. I understand that you are upset, but please try to see the flip side. --Dschwen (talk) 22:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• Dschwen, I find your concern about “restarting an arms-race for the users' attention” to be crying about the sky is falling. One of the problems experienced Wikipedians succumb to is getting too familiar with how things work. New or mildly experienced I.P. visitors need a helping hand. In fact, our I.P.s with medium experience in particular need extra help (in the form of a big “THIS IS DIFFERENT” notice, precisely because they have expectations as to how things normally work. If we throw them something out of the ordinary, we should make it especially easy and attention-getting for them to realize they are in for a browser-breaking monster download that will choke Firefox into unconsciousness. There is no harm here with this template. Greg A L (talk) 22:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
• Delete The old template was quite visible and together with the size given directly under the image everyone who then clicks on it can only blame him/herself if it makes the computer stutter. If we are that concerned that people don't read the warning displayed prominently on the page then we should put a warning sign above or over the image - but that would be overkill, or not? Hekerui (talk) 22:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
• Suggestion. So does everyone agree that the problem basically boils down to user does not see or read warning and mindlessly clicks where he always clicks? Then the far more elegant solution would be moving the full resolution link and putting the interactive viewer links in its place. We'd be making the assumption that this is what the user actually wants in most cases, and thus we make it readily available. It would be very easy to achieve with a little piece of site javascript (enabled even for not logged in users). To avoid programming image size detection in javascript I could make it detect the presence of a {{LargeImage}} template, and switch links with it (the full resolution link would than automagically appear in the template and the interactive viewer link directly below the image preview) the resulting code would be simple and robust as it would not have to construct the links itself, but merely swap html elements. --Dschwen (talk) 00:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I think if it's clear to the user that it's a huge ass image and we have a nifty image viewer that lets them view it without killing their connection and/or computer is where we need to go. I've always thought the old template was not at all obvious or easy for a person to find the very useful large-image-viewer thing. Actually when the Signpost asked my opinion about the weeks FP picks, and I pointed out the flash viewer for my pick, virtually noone even knew it existed. It's just a text link that isn't at all clear what it's for imho. Ideally we should have a way to completely block users from clicking images over a set amount of megapixels (i.e. the big image thumb isn't clickable if megapixes>X amount) or make it a link to the image viewer, or something. Not sure what we can do within the current software version, but I think a thin warning isn't sufficient to warn new users and doesn't do a good enough job promoting the image-viewer to even experienced users. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 00:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
    • My suggestion is doable within the current software version. --Dschwen (talk) 00:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Your proposal is perfect. Greg A L (talk) 04:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
        • Ok, I whipped up a little script to do this. Test it by clicking here. It works for me (with the vector skin). This will need a bit of testing to see if it interferes with other gadgets. One more thing, the script currently just disables clicks onto the preview image. As there are two versions of the viewer I was not sure which one to link to the preview image itself (flash is not widely liked, but it is much nicer than the non-flash version). So right now only the text links should be swapped. --Dschwen (talk) 15:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
•  Delete, needless duplicate without localization; if the current template has wrong layout, let us redesign it; but I agree with Dschwen’s suggestion, I’d say go ahead and implement it ASAP, so that we can close this deletion request. --Mormegil (talk) 15:58, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

---

Deleted - Duplicate of {{LargeImage}}. If that one is not good enough, talk about it at Template talk:LargeImage and make suggestions for improvement. –Krinkle^talk 19:16, 2 January 2011 (UTC)