Template talk:Sidebar image

Curious
This is rather curious. The template includes an option for a caption yet the caption isn't included when the template is transcluded. &mdash; Morder (talk) 00:58, December 15, 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter right now anyway as there are 1000's of pages that reference this template and all would probably have to be fixed if this one is fixed and I see no reason to do it. &mdash; Morder (talk) 01:05, December 15, 2009 (UTC)


 * The caption is hidden (deliberately, because it wouldn't make sense on most sidebars), but still used by the underlying thumbnail code to be used as a mouseover text. Having an option to describe the image increases useability/accessibility. -- Cid Highwind 12:49, February 2, 2010 (UTC)

Size
Is there a way to add an option to reduce the size of the image at the page for non-standard images? (See: Earth-Romulan War and USS Exeter (NCC-1672) for what I mean.) - Archduk3:  talk  22:00, December 29, 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't use the sidebar image template for those items. Sidebar image is very intentionally set to use the standard sidebar width.  The Exeter page (at a minimum) should not have that image in the sidebar.  It's rather unsuitable. -- sulfur 22:30, December 29, 2009 (UTC)

All the other ships, with assignment patches, have the image in the sidebar, mainly because there just wasn't any good place to put it in most articles, and only the Exeter's is too big at the current size. I would rather not redo every page since just one has an issue, or reduce the file size, since that doesn't fix the giant logos on the Earth-Romulan War page. Adding another variable/comment spot in the template should do it, but to be honest I just don't know. - Archduk3:  talk  22:58, December 29, 2009 (UTC)
 * For the assignment patches, maybe it makes more sense to create a new image section in the sidebar for ships that is expressly for assignment patches? Then we could do them bit by bit as required.
 * For the war page, wouldn't all of the conflict articles with those conflict sidebars exhibit that problem? Maybe the better solution is to put both images side-by-side at the top rather than mashing them down the way that one is done.  Side-by-side makes a bit more sense, and you won't get such enormous images. -- sulfur 23:09, December 29, 2009 (UTC)

I think I may have solved the problem, see: User:Archduk3/Related for a revision to this template, and User:Archduk3/Template and User:Archduk3/Sandbox for the revisions to the starship sidebar and the final product, respectively. (will need feedback) It shouldn't take much to adapt the conflict sidebar as well. - Archduk3:  talk  23:18, December 29, 2009 (UTC)


 * That assignment patch still looks terrible. It's still bigger than the rest of the sidebar.  I think that it needs to be moved out of the sidebar entirely and pushed into the article somewhere. -- sulfur 23:21, December 29, 2009 (UTC)

Well, to be honest that is a crappy patch anyways, and other ships like aren't as bad. Either way, the changes to the templates did allow for a reduction in size, which was what this was all about. :) - Archduk3:  talk  23:27, December 29, 2009 (UTC)


 * OK. The first reply here has been to not use this template to reduce image size, because we want images to have an exact size. Basically, there's a very fine reason for having a template that formats images to exactly 292px - yet, this template has been changed to allow for it. I'm going to revert this change now. Any resulting sidebar template errors need to be dealt with in another way. -- Cid Highwind 12:08, February 2, 2010 (UTC)

Breaking templates all over the site just because you have an issue with the added functionality, that was added weeks/a month ago(two changes were made), is a gross misuse of power, and since I'm not interested in being banned, I'm not going to get in an edit war over this. I'm also not going to be "fixing" anything either, since if you had an issue with it, you should have said something first. - 13:17, February 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry for recognizing this change for what it really means only now - but I'm not here 24/7, and don't have this template on my watch list. Maybe I should have added it. However, as I already noted, the first reply here (by sulfur) should have been very clear already. Don't mess with this template to allow resizing, because this is not what this template is for - in fact, it exists solely to allow for the exact opposite, images of a very specific size. A longer explanation has already been added to your talk page, because I wasn't sure if your reply here was still forthcoming. Anyway, I don't think this has anything to do with "misuse of power" (other admins may be the judge in that regard), and of course I'm going to fix cases where this revert led to problems, as I find them. -- Cid Highwind 13:42, February 2, 2010 (UTC)

I would say deliberately breaking things is a misuse of power, along with the admin wins by default. If you had said something first upon finding this, we could be having this conversation without anything being broken, and after a consensus was reached, implemented any changes. It says to be bold in making changes, not reverting them, and I know other admins have seen this without reverting it, so I have to assume that right now, among those who know, only you have a problem with it. I don't have an issue with changing this back per say, even though that option makes this template moot, but with the way it was done. - 13:58, February 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * Can I suggest that we perhaps add a secondary template that would duplicate the functionality that Archduk3 needs, which would also allow us to leave this template exactly as is? The other option is that we create a template that has the pre-reverted functionality of this, and this one would call that one with a hard-coded image size.  That would be (in theory) the best of both worlds.  Of a sort. -- sulfur 14:14, February 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * Do we really need another template, if we want to allow random image size? Look at the example to the right. It's a simple thumbnail image formatted to a random image size. It does exactly what it is supposed to do, and does not need a "detour" to some image template, if that template wouldn't have any proper function anyway. Of course, we should ask ourselves whether we really want random image sizes in sidebars - but if we do, we don't need another template for it. What eventually would make sense, though, is a template that takes two images, and arranges them side-by-side so that the result will, again, be the exact width of our standard sidebars. -- Cid Highwind 14:35, February 2, 2010 (UTC)

The ability to change the size based on what a particular image calls for to fit in the sidebar is what these changes were about, and I used it since this template said it was created to be used with every image in the sidebars. Since we don't enforce a pixel count, or even a dimensional standard on our images, some of them may require a slight tweak to the size from time to time, while nearly every other image using that sidebar doesn't. Despite what others may think, this was never about going willy-nilly with the size of the image, but changing the size of a particular image so it doesn't look willy-nilly when displayed. If the use of this template is the issue, any sidebar that may need size adjustments shouldn't use it at all. In which case those templates that don't use this should be listed here, in case they all need to be changed in the future. - 15:26, February 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * Just tell me... How do you want to change the standard size of an image that is displayed via this template, if the template call used to display that image circumvents any standard size setting anyway? I absolutely can't follow that logic. -- Cid Highwind 15:36, February 2, 2010 (UTC)

This is from the military conflict sidebar:

I haven't changed the standard size, it's still 292px, I just added the option to use a non-standard size for a few particular images when the situation calls for it. And trust me when I say that I know that " {{sidebar image| " could just as easily be replaced with " [[File: ", so if it's such a big deal, might as well do that. Every other sidebar may require a revert as well, since they were all changed to work with the expanded format. - 15:49, February 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll post it here since this is where it really belongs. No sidebars should contain a different sized image because the point of it was standardization. If an image doesn't appear right at that size then the image uploaded could be replaced by one that does. Simple fix. All sidebar images should be 292px because wikia's skin design calls for it - if wikia changes then all the "custom" image sizes will have to be changed and we're back at the whole reason for this template in the first place... &mdash; Morder (talk) 15:52, February 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * (Edit conflict with Morder) Not sure what that has to do with my question, but anyway... since you've brought it up, let's have a look at the resulting image call, using the pre-revert version of this template:
 * With a given size: NAME
 * Without a given size: NAME
 * My observation is that:
 * "center" is unneccessary in any case, because thumbnail images in a sidebar are centered by matching CSS rules anyway
 * There's either a duplicated size command, or the caption is added twice, for no apparent reason.
 * Now, returning to the original question: this template has been designed to "enforce" a specific image size, and to allow changing it in one place only. If size can be overridden, then how are we supposed to still be able to change it to something else at the same time? That just doesn't work - which means that, yes, if there's a very good reason to not use standard image size, it might as well be done using other code than a call to this template. Maybe another template, or a direct thumbnail call - but not this template. (Stressing if and very good reason again ;).) -- Cid Highwind 16:02, February 2, 2010 (UTC)

It looks like this actually: The caption has to be last, or it doesn't display, and for some reason it wasn't auto centering, don't know why. As for the reason of using this template over just using the code above is simple, the standard size is still 292px, and most images that use this template should be the at 292px. Only a few of them display as too large at that size so I didn't think it was worth changing the military template, since if there was a size change needed only the individual page would need to be updated, not the whole template. I'll show the steps so there is no confusion about this: By expanding this template there is less work to be done if there is a change needed, since the standard size is still used from this one location. We could always upload different versions of the images that don't require a different size, but not everyone can do that, and everyone can add a size call. As I said before, any size change is for a good reason, and even the user set thumbnail size isn't perfect, in much the same way, so having the option seemed like the best idea. - 16:35, February 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * With a given size: NAME
 * Without a given size: NAME
 * using sidebar template:
 * wikia changes the ad size
 * we change sidebar template
 * individual page image size is changed
 * not using sidebar template
 * wikia changes the ad size
 * we change sidebar template
 * we change the military template's 'standard' size
 * individual page image size is changed


 * Actually, how it will work out is the following:
 * Wikia changes ad size
 * we change standard size in {{tl|sidebar image}}
 * no one will change individual image sizes, because there's simply no way to find out which sidebars actually contain images of a different size. FAIL!
 * That makes me reach the conclusion that sidebars should preferably not contain images of another size at all. -- Cid Highwind 16:56, February 2, 2010 (UTC)

So you admit that you changed the template, without prior discussion, based on your opinion that you are unwilling to consider changing, and I can't do anything about it without breaking the rules and getting banned because you're an admin. How perfectly draconian. If we can't allow for a handful of pages to deviate from an arbitrarily imposed standard for no other reason than it's the standard, why have a wiki at all? Just call it what it is, a fan site that just happens to have a cast of rotating administrators.

..and I do happen to know which pages use a different size. We keep lists of nearly everything else, what's one more? Place it right here, where one would have to go to change the size. Compared with everything else there is to do around here, is that really going to be too much to do? - 17:23, February 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * Wow... looks as if "less work" (add a resize option instead of making people find a matching image) just magically turned into "more work" (make sure that people manually maintain a list of non-standard images, so that those can later be changed manually). Let's start simple: how are you going to "force" people into maintaining that list? -- Cid Highwind 17:34, February 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * I just have to ask: Why aren't the pages that require this new size feature redesigned with the current size in mind? It seems to me that this is the best option as we maintain the standard and pages are written to the standard - especially when only 3 pages, by archduk3's estimate, require this new size feature? &mdash; Morder (talk) 18:01, February 2, 2010 (UTC)

[Edit conflict] - Who said anything about force? After all the sidebars are changed, it should pretty much be finalized, and I'm willing to do it, so why should anyone else have to bother? And no, it didn't magically get larger, there would always be at least an extra step without using this template. As for the reasoning behind that statement, and just in case everything else has failed to make a point: until I added the option, there were still starships using individual sidebars so an extra image could be added. The individual sidebars we have on the species' pages, or the government sidebars, which don't use this template for the very reason these options were added, all prove that the plan to have a one stop size change option failed. There will always be more than just one step, and there is nothing stopping someone from just changing a sidebar when no one is looking, so there is always going to be a margin of error.

I added functionality so a wider user base could use every image we have in the database. You're saying that less functionality with less accessibility and a choice of less then every image available is the way to go. It should be pretty obvious by now that I'm willing to do the work needed to bring every sidebar up to snuff, and I've said and done as much more than once, so the real question here is why won't you let me?

[RE:Morder] - It's more than three pages that use it, it's only three pages that would require a change. - {{User:Archduk3/Sig/nature}} 18:11, February 2, 2010 (UTC)

Also, every image size change is an adjustment to make the image smaller, so if wikia really did change the size of the ad, do we honestly think it's going to be smaller? A change to a larger add wouldn't require the smaller images to be changed at all. - {{User:Archduk3/Sig/nature}} 18:14, February 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Even still the pages that would need to be changed are few and then everyone would be happy. &mdash; Morder (talk) 18:15, February 2, 2010 (UTC)

Are you talking about using custom build templates, uploading "larger" versions of the images used so the actual logo/symbol is still at a "smaller" size overall, since that's what the government/military/starship sidebars are mainly using at the reduced sizes, or something else entirely? - {{User:Archduk3/Sig/nature}} 18:28, February 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * So much to reply to, so I'm probably going to miss something. Anyway:
 * After all the sidebars are changed, it should pretty much be finalized - if all the sidebars were never touched again after changing them to whatever new format once, then we wouldn't even need templates at all. One basic reason for having templates (besides removing code duplication) is to foster standardization, while still allowing people to change the content of whatever it is that is generated by the template. Which means that...
 * so why should anyone else have to bother? - people will have to bother, as long as they are allowed to change something that might otherwise lead to much confusion down the line if no one bothers at the time of changing it. If they are allowed to change a random template, and add an image of random size, and we at least want a list of pages containing this randomness, then someone has to maintain that list as changes are made. Not once and then never again, but continuously. But then again...
 * there is nothing stopping someone from just changing a sidebar when no one is looking - exactly, which is why manually maintaining a list of non-standard images won't ever work. Remaining options are to either not allow non-standard images at all ("forcing" people to remove the whole sidebar template call if they want a non-standard image, which we should notice) or, as some sort of bad compromise, allow for another sidebar image template that lets us at least find pages that may contain non-standard images. Then again...
 * ...you did give a very few examples of pages that use non-standard images. Perhaps it just might be the better solution to not use these images in a sidebar at all because, obviously, their aspect ratio just isn't working with a vertically oriented page element.
 * -- Cid Highwind 19:01, February 2, 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with using a 'sub-template' of the main one that allows for image size changes, though for the most consistency, it should still use the expanded version of this template, so the standard size images remain the same and would update if there was any change, which as I pointed about above, probably wouldn't require a change at all to the 'adjusted' images.

Of course these sub-templates wouldn't need to use this at all, but I think changing this back and subing starship, military, along with noting that government and species(?) (since both our proposals for that have a size adjustment option in one form or another) would need to be adjusted in addition to this template would be less work overall then changing every other sidebar back, a simple revert may not be best as other features were added to some outside of the size change. This way, rampant images sizes could be tracked, and there is no need for custom made templates, which would be more trouble down the line. - {{User:Archduk3/Sig/nature}} 19:33, February 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * Now, I've gone through all sidebars to see where the big problems with full-width images are - and found next to none. There's the logo in {{tl|sidebar starship}} which you just changed to a simple file call earlier today, and there are the logos in {{tl|sidebar government}} that admittedly are to big most of the time. The thing is - neither of those needs to have an option to allow for a completely free resizing of each individual use of the sidebar. Instead, it would more than suffice if there was a hardcoded "half-width" option, that could be "activated" on the sidebar template level. See the example sidebar to the right, and this template for implementation.
 * It removes the option to do "whatever the hell you want" regarding image size - which is the big problem I see, but still allows to make specific classes of images smaller. -- Cid Highwind 12:48, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

If this "hardwired" option is mainly going to be used with the updated government sidebar, I would use 180px instead, as the only image so far that didn't use that size, or something similar, in any sidebar, was the {{USS|Exeter|NCC-1672}}'s assignment patch, which has already been moved out of the sidebar since the thing looks butt ugly anywhere, and most certainly should not be taken to parties. As for the military conflict sidebar, adding the twoimg option when it's 'settled' on and put into use would IMO be best, as seen to the right. - {{User:Archduk3/Sig/nature}} 19:46, February 3, 2010 (UTC)


 * See Talk:Earth-Romulan War for further discussion of the last part. Other than that, I'm going to try something on this template. Hopefully, that will satisfy all sides. -- Cid Highwind 20:57, February 3, 2010 (UTC)


 * There it is, all three options that have been discussed so far (one, one/halfwidth, two) in one template. It would be great to not go overboard with the new options immediately, to let others have some time for testing and eventual further input first. Other than that, I think we can "close" this part of the discussion? -- Cid Highwind 22:09, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

I would say yes, we can close this. The halfwidth size, which I can live with, vs a 180px option to replace it, which would allow the 'logo' option on the starship template to be tied back in with this, may be worth discussion after the dust has settled from this, but that's another day. - {{User:Archduk3/Sig/nature}} 22:22, February 3, 2010 (UTC)