Template talk:PRC provinces imagemap

Note. Smaller to larger image maps:

Overlap problems fixed

I think I fixed the overlap problem on a couple pages that are using the transcluded Template:PRC provinces imagemap.

On one page I moved the imagemap down a little. On another page I used {{subst:Clear}} to block any overlap. To do so one places {{subst:Clear}} before the template code:

Here is a link to the pages that transclude the template:

Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:PRC_provinces_imagemap

GIF image substituted for PNG image

I substituted Image:China administrative.gif for the png image, Image:China administrative.png.

The scaled 800-pixel-wide gif image uses only 135 kilobytes (versus 392 kilobytes for the scaled png image).

This solves the slow-loading page problem for dialup internet users accessing wikipedia articles that have this template on the page. --Timeshifter 14:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the GIF is much better, but now that we have the "big" version which shows the full 857px linked right below this one, there is no reason to have this at 800px. That is far too big for any picture to be in article space, even maps like this one. I've reduced the size back to 500px; this way, it doesn't take up an inordinate amount of article space (the whole map will fit on most screens now), and for those who can't read the small text the larger version is available. shoeofdeath 01:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems most people want it at 800px. See the revision history. It fits fine in my 17 inch monitor. Most people have 17 inch or larger monitors nowadays. It is very difficult to read at smaller than 800 pixels. Even then it is a little blurry. The full size is the most clear. So it is good to keep the big one too. My eyes are not getting better over time. :)

Also, I solved the problem you mentioned concerning kilobyte size and dialup users.

I agree that there is little need for 800 pixel wide images most of the time. But in the case of imagemaps they need to viewed at larger sizes sometimes in order to read the text in some images, and to discriminate between regions while moving the cursor around. Other imagemaps are readable at smaller sizes.--Timeshifter 04:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? The same number of people have changed it to 500px (2) that have changed it to 800px (2). Again, 800px is way too large for articles, this is simply not done ever, even for imagemaps.

For people who can't see the text clearly, there is the link to the new large version! Wasn't this the point of creating the new version? This solves the clarity issue, no? Why would you want to link to an identical map (only 57px larger)? shoeofdeath 04:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If one does not count the anonymous editors, then 3 editors including the creator of the template, put the imagemap in the template at 800 pixels or larger. You are the only non-anonymous editor to make it smaller than 800 pixels.

It is untrue that it is not done ever for images. Also, many other templates span the width of the page. Including the many hide/show templates for further info. This is a similar type of further info template. Only it is in graphical form.

It does not make sense to make dialup internet users have to go to another page, and load another ~100 kilobyte image, in order to read the text on the image in order to know where to click. I used to have dialup access, so I know the problem well. I have broadband access now. This way we satisfy both users. I like being able to go the largest size image too. It is less blurry since it is the full size image. Scaling (even a little bit) causes some slight blurring of text.

I solved the formatting problems on the pages that transclude this template. So the 800 pixel wide image is not a problem on those pages. Nothing overlaps the image. --Timeshifter 16:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, why would we not count the anonymous editors? They are editors, too, and their opinions also carry weight. Second of all, this is not a vote, so the number of people who changed the page doesn't matter anyway, especially since the changes by others were made before a new larger version was available.

You have not proved that other pictures or imagemaps are ever this large on Wikipedia. Yes, the width of templates are often the width of the page, but that is only because their heights are also not so massive. Furthermore (maybe most important) they would not appear in the middle of an article. At 800px this looks completely ridiculous, and is totally out of line with Wikipedia standards (yes, that is an official policy page saying images shouldn't be more than 550px wide). This does not even come close to fitting on normal computer screens all at once.

Again, this image was tough because even at the maximum image size (550px) some text was unclear to some readers. So, you created the new large picture, which solved the problem for those readers. The only remaining problem would be solved by reducing the size of this map. shoeofdeath 17:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) There is no remaining problem. The image fits in monitors that are 17 inches or larger. People with smaller monitors who can't read the text end up by going to the larger image anyway.

Here is the relevant quote from Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Displayed_image_size: "Larger images should generally be a maximum of 550 pixels wide, so that they can comfortably be displayed on 800x600 monitors."--Timeshifter 18:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What?? My monitor is much larger than that, and this picture is not even close to fitting (inches don't matter, display size does). Yes, the policy states 550px is "generally" the maximum, because in some cases they might need to be made slightly larger. But 800px, which you are arguing for, is 250px larger than this! That is 45% larger than the suggested maximum, making this particular map significantly larger than every other picture on Wikipedia!

On my 800x600 monitor, 550px is the largest size that will fit on the screen. Personally, I think 500px looks better overall in the relevant articles. Your arguments for 800px are simply not making any sense, so I will ask for an outside opinion. shoeofdeath 19:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My 17 inch monitor is currently set at 1152 by 864. That, or 1024 by 768, is fairly normal for this size monitor. Notebooks may need the 800 by 600 setting. But even then most people prefer the larger image for readability. Even if the image extends past the right side of their screen. Many tables extend past the right side of their screens. We don't decrease the size of the text in those tables just to fit the table into their screens. We have to accommodate the majority of users. Forcing the majority of users to go to another page just to read the text is a waste of time and bandwidth.

I will create a smaller version of the template. Then the editors of the 4 articles transcluding the template can decide which size to use. They may even decide to use the biggest template (857 pixels). It fits fine in my 17 inch monitor, and it is the most legible since there is no added blurriness due to scaling. --Timeshifter 22:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that the policy page relevant here suggests conforming to 800 by 600, I that is what we should stick by (that is why there is policy). Since no one else has commented here, you cannot state that "most people prefer the large image". In my opinion you are overestimating the number of people who wouldn't be able to read the text in the first place (again, I can see everything fine).

Creating more identical templates is not going to solve this. I myself have edited every page this is used on and would oppose the use of any picture that doesn't fit on most screens. Please wait for other people to share their opinions before creating another version. shoeofdeath 22:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, you have already done so, and you have also changed the map used on all the transcluded pages. I am asking you to please stop making these changes until consensus here is reached. shoeofdeath 22:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't WP:OWN anything on wikipedia, and I don't appreciate your tone. I will leave a note on the 4 articles, pointing them to here. --Timeshifter 22:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OWN? How is that relevant? Please just calm down and wait for more discussion here. shoeofdeath 22:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Telling someone to calm down (especially when I am calm) is a violation of WP:CIVIL. Please ease up on the hyperbole. I am being constructive and offering people options. You are trying to WP:OWN this template and its use. Let the editors of the individual articles decide. --Timeshifter 22:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have reverted the edits of everyone who has tried to change this template, and you have changed the usage on every page it is used on. Who is trying to WP:OWN it? I apologize if my saying "calm down" offended you, but your erratic editing would suggest you are not, in fact, calm. shoeofdeath 22:49, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are still in hyperbole spin mode. My editing is not erratic. You are the one who has been changing the size of this template. 3 other editors like the large size. Another editor just starting reverting it back to your preferred size of 500 pixels. I think they may not have known of the smaller 550-pixel-wide template I just created. I am giving people options. You apologize for the uncivil accusations of not being calm, and then go ahead and do the same accusation. As I said, please ease up on the hyperbole. --Timeshifter 22:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is fruitless to continue this personal attack/accusation/or whatever. Please focus at the subject at hand. Thanks. Chris! _ct 23:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was one of the original editors for the PRC article, back in the day when the article was still under 30kb. The huge size of the map is ghastly. Not only does it violate Wikipedia image conventions it also breaks the article arbitrarily into two parts. There is a noticeable delay/jump when trying to scroll past this image on my one-year-old computer, leading me to skip a lot of other more useful content. I say we go back to the GIF image, and have a link for the vector image. --Nishishei 15:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my reply to you farther down.--Timeshifter 21:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3 templates

Here are the 3 templates and their current width settings:

Template:PRC provinces small imagemap - 550 pixels. 73 kilobytes.
Template:PRC provinces imagemap - 700 pixels. 107 kilobytes.
Template:PRC provinces big imagemap - 857 pixels. 95 kilobytes.

I recommend using the big imagemap. It fits fine in 17 inch (43 centimeter) and larger monitors using normal resolutions. The original creator of the first template set it at full size (857 pixels wide).

Even people with smaller monitors usually want to be able to read the text on clickable imagemaps in order to know better where they are clicking. So they usually don't mind the image extending to the right. There is no point in making them go to another page to see the full size imagemap. All 3 imagemaps use around 100 kilobytes each. So there is no advantage in bandwidth for any of them. --Timeshifter 22:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I too prefer the larger one. But I think that we should take other people screen size into consideration. If the large map is too large for some people, and the small map is too small for other people, then we should settle with the medium size map. Reading the above discussion, there simply no reason to argue about this. We got to respect other editors' screen size, since nobody WP:OWN Wikipedia. Chris! _ct 23:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "medium" map is also too large for me (and most editors, according to policy). Like I noted above, images are never made this large in Wikipedia articles. I support Nat's change to the version here, except with the GIF picture instead of the PNG (no need to use the "small" version). For people who can't see the map clearly, the link to the larger version is available. shoeofdeath 23:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minor note. Nat's recent change was unnecessary. Nat probably did not know that a small version of the template had recently been created: Template:PRC provinces small imagemap. --Timeshifter 00:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The small version is actually larger than Nat's change. My opinion is that the original version should be brought back to 500px and be used on all pages (not that the small version should be used). shoeofdeath 00:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are arguing about 550 pixels versus 500 pixels??!! I can create another template and call it "Template:PRC provinces Shoeofdeath's-500-pixel-wide small imagemap." --Timeshifter 00:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your proposal sounds good. But your assumption that most editors think the image is too large is incorrect. Almost everyone has different browsers and settings, and that makes them see the image differently. As for the policy, that is just a general guideline about image. We can have an exception for situation like these. While I do support a larger image, it is OK to have the smaller size. If I want to see the image so badly, I can always go to the image page. Chris! _ct 23:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or you can click the link to the large version right below it : ). What I meant was that if the suggestion to keep images under 550px made it on to an official policy page, it must have had consensus to be there. Maybe "most editors" was the wrong phrase. shoeofdeath 23:49, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was the wrong phrase. I have helped edit guideline and policy pages, and hardly anything is there without reason. There are times when larger images are necessary. I have seen some of those images in wikipedia articles. Imagemaps are an obvious exception to the general rule. --Timeshifter 00:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, actually the general image policy applies to this image as well. What I mean with exception is that adjustment to the image is necessary if some people can't see the image. But I think the current size is too large. That is why we have to discuss to see what size is the best. Chris! _ct 00:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The image policy applies to all images. But that policy allows exceptions. Here is the relevant quote from Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Displayed_image_size: "Larger images should generally be a maximum of 550 pixels wide, so that they can comfortably be displayed on 800x600 monitors."

If someone decides they want to read the text on the medium or small template image then they will need to click the link to go to the larger template. So if they have a monitor set at 800x600, then they still end up with the medium or big image. Both of which will extend past the right side of their 800x600 screen. So they will have to scroll horizontally to put the image in their screen. I suggest using nothing less than the medium image in articles. At 700 pixels wide it will fit completely in an 800x600 screen if scrolling is used. The 550 pixel wide image is very difficult to read. --Timeshifter 00:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about creating a 650 pixel imagemap as a compromise? Chris! _ct 01:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this is any larger than 550px, it will not fit on my screen. I prefer 500px because it allows a little extra scrolling room, however, I can understand if people think 550px is a little more clear. I can read the text fine at both levels (certainly the province names are clear, this is most important). Reducing this back to 500 or 550 helps people with an 800x600 screen (many users, I believe) and keeping the link to the larger version helps those who can't see the text clearly. If we make it any larger than 550px, only people with larger screen settings are helped. shoeofdeath 01:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what to say. Just wait for more comments before deciding. 75.61.125.13 05:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The full-size vector map is unnecessary and a waste of Wikipedia bandwidth

I was one of the original editors for the PRC article, back in the day when the article was still under 30kb and FA. The huge size of the map is ghastly. Not only does it violate Wikipedia image conventions, it also breaks the article arbitrarily into two parts. There is a noticeable delay/jump when trying to scroll past this image on my one-year-old computer with broadband, leading me to skip a lot of other more useful content. I can't imagine what the experience would be on a much older computer, running dial-up. I say we go back to the GIF image, but also have a link for the full-size vector image as compromise. The full-sized vector map in the middle of the PRC article has to go though. --Nishishei 16:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have made the changes. The original GIF thumbnail map had been happily without controversy for more than 3 years on Wikipedia. This bickering over 500px vs 800px vs 857px just seems silly. All three are oversized and unnecessary, when a simple link would do. Editors should concentrate their efforts on making the text content better, and returning this article to FA status. Images on Wikipedia have always been secondary concerns.--Nishishei 16:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I created the 73-kilobyte, 550-pixel-wide gif for the imagemap version that some people have currently chosen for the PRC article.

The old imagemap template a couple weeks ago was using a 189-kilobyte, 500-pixel-wide png map.

Before August 2007 there was just a very small thumbnail image of the plain map being used in the PRC article. It was not an imagemap with links for each region. See this PRC article version from August 9. 2007 to see the very small thumbnail map that was in the "Political divisions" section of the article: [1]

Here are the 3 current gif imagemap templates to choose from, and their current width settings:

Template:PRC provinces small imagemap - 550 pixels. 73 kilobytes.

Template:PRC provinces imagemap - 700 pixels. 107 kilobytes.

Template:PRC provinces big imagemap - 857 pixels. 95 kilobytes.

It seems that some people disagree with you, Nishishei, at

Talk:People's_Republic_of_China#Imagemap_size_discussion --Timeshifter 21:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]