Jump to content

Talk:Jeffrey Dahmer

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Konerak Sinthasomphone)
Former good article nomineeJeffrey Dahmer was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 22, 2013Good article nomineeNot listed
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on July 22, 2004, July 22, 2012, July 22, 2016, and July 22, 2021.

Semi-protected edit request on 6 August 2024

[edit]

Note the correct spelling of “fiancée” feminine form. The article currently displays the inaccurately gendered noun. 86.165.193.71 (talk) 22:25, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rectified. Thanks.--Kieronoldham (talk) 22:35, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In Media

[edit]

Music

The song "213", named after Jeffrey Dahmer's apartment number, is the ninth song recorded by heavy metal band, Slayer, on their "Divine Intervention" album. The lyrics are written from the perspective of Jeffrey Dahmer as he is in the process of trapping, killing, dissecting, and sexually abusing the corpse. 68.12.113.244 (talk) 16:07, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

did he every ate his victims

[edit]

did he every ate his victims 2601:883:C381:4410:C46F:D102:5FDB:9F89 (talk) 17:48, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

article why not read Martinevans123 (talk) 17:53, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Images

[edit]

@Kieronoldham: In response to your question here: different images have different proportions and as a result will appear to be different sizes; that is normal, and remains the case even with your changes. However, setting a fixed pixel size, and particularly setting a very small fixed pixel sizes, negatively impacts those who have chosen to set a larger default image size, for example due to vision limitations. On the other hand, if you personally prefer smaller images, you can adjust your own settings to suit that preference. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:45, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your initial concerns. All images should be roughly of the same size resultingly regardless of original numerical upload img. size. What is seen to the naked eye, as is the case on most other articles including GA ones, is what matters. I do not think default anchoring or tweaking templates, as evident here, produces desired results. Looking at the results of removing "120px" from file templates can be seen to the naked eye.--Kieronoldham (talk) 05:02, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree you can see a difference made by that edit (although what that is will depend on your settings). But both before and after, it simply isn't the case that all images are the same size. Nor is that a particularly desirable outcome - we don't want to be limited by the smallest-size image. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:15, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kieronoldham, regarding your comment here, you'd certainly be welcome to pursue uploading new image versions if you feel that would be beneficial, but having a uniform size is neither necessary nor desirable, particularly when it involves deliberately making images postage-sized regardless of user preferences. Your alternative would be to set your own preferences so that all images display at a small size. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:43, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Nikkimaria. I hope you don't think I am being awkward. I assure you this observation is nothing to do with myself personally but if you look at both the scale and image quality of the two below images as per removing "120px" from the template (and within two images populating the same section at that) as you left the article, not only the size disparity but also the image quality speak volumes. I just think having a "generally uniform" size of image (regardless of the source) is ideal for everyone - whomever they may be - whether they are Wiki. users or are reading the article for the first time on their Android phone or laptop. I had nothing to do with the uploading of these images, but surely uniform consistency in size should be appropriate.--Kieronoldham (talk) 04:03, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The image quality is not great, but that doesn't change with the sizing. They are exactly the same in that respect whether fixed px or default.
Uniform image sizing is not ideal at all. Some people find images distracting so set their default image size small. Others have difficulty seeing detail so prefer to set them large. Defining a pixel size serves both of these user types poorly. Additionally attempting to enforce a uniform size limits images to the size of the smallest.
You can scale image sizing using |upright= to allow user preferences to be respected. But a single setting will not be appropriate for every single image. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:12, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with Kieronoldham here. Without adjustment, Tony Hughes' picture looks huge and blurry. It looks neat with adjustment, giving an orderly and professional look to the article. CJC-DI (talk) 06:20, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that many readers will have no idea how to set image size preferences. In fact, I suspect that many editors of nearly 18 years standing might not know... Martinevans123 (talk) 09:11, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Steven Walter Tuomi
Tony Anthony Hughes