Template talk:Wide image

To be framed

Does anybody know how to frame the ensuing image? --Attilios 00:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Interwiki requests

{{editprotected}}

Please add he:תבנית:תמונה רחבה.

Done. - auburnpilot talk 01:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Doc subpage

I've added a documentation subpage for this template (see WP:DOC), please edit the template to:

<div class="thumb" style="margin: 5px; clear: both;">
<div style="overflow: auto; overflow-x: scroll; width: 98%;">[[Image:{{{1}}}|{{{2}}}|{{{3|}}}]]
</div></div>
{{#if: {{{3}}}|<div class="thumbcaption" style="margin: 5px; font-size:90%">{{{3|}}}</div>}}<noinclude>
{{template doc}}
<!-- Add categories and interwikis to the /doc subpage, not here! -->
</noinclude>

Thanks! +mt 20:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Improvements to scrollbars (or lack of scrollbars)

{{editprotected}} I've have some suggestions to improve this template. First, a horizontal scrollbar should not be shown if the image is wide, but fits within the browser window without needing to be scrolled. E.g., try this in a sandbox:

{{wide image|371011142 70e875a193 o.jpg|400px|An example of a 400px wide image, which shows a presently inactive horizontal scrollbar.}}

Secondly, I used this template on a page, then I viewed the page with IE7, only to see a vertical scrollbar appear to scroll vertically about 1 pixel. I'm unsure why exactly this is, however that scrollbar should definitely not be visible. To fix both of these problems, change the source to:

<div class="thumb" style="margin: 5px; clear: both;">
<div style="overflow: auto; overflow-x: auto; overflow-y: hidden; width: 98%;">[[Image:{{{1}}}|{{{2}}}|{{{3|}}}]]
</div></div>
{{#if: {{{3}}}|<div class="thumbcaption" style="margin: 5px; font-size:90%">{{{3|}}}</div>}}<noinclude>
{{template doc}}
<!-- Add categories and interwikis to the /doc subpage, not here! -->
</noinclude>

You can also test out the same code changes using User:Mwtoews/Template:wide image in a sandbox:

{{User:Mwtoews/Template:wide image|371011142 70e875a193 o.jpg|400px|An example of a 400px wide image, which does not show a scrollbar, unless you resize your window to force it.}}

Thanks. +mt 02:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Confirmed your version works on Firefox 2. The strangeness you've mentioned with IE7 leads me to wonder if the current code is to fix an incompatibility with some other browser, though; it may be a good idea to ask for help testing this on a wide range of browsers at the technical village pump. --ais523 17:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointers. I will prepare a test page, and post something at WP:VPT to see if the code works. +mt 18:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I've updated the template. Cheers. --MZMcBride 22:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Remake

{{editprotected}} I made a remake of this template. Here is the code. The main benefit of this remake is that the images actualy do look like a thumb-image, as was obviously also intended here with the "class=thumb" code (which stopped working to make an image look like a thumb about a year ago!). Also the bug described in the previous post should be taken care of. I have an example of how it looks below.

A small journey through Germany

Freestyle 22:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 22:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Freestyle 07:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

In the image above, I don't see the full height of the image, using IE7, 1152 x 864 px, full screen. --Cavrdg 11:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I can confirm this. Firefox 2.0 makes an image 97px in height (as correctly indicated in the source), and places the horizontal scrollbar below the image for a combined hight of approx 114px. But IE7 uses a different approach: it makes both the image and the scroll-bar 97px. I haven't hunted down the solution yet, but I'm sure there is yet another IE workaround for this behaviour out there .... +mt 17:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I've confirmed this to be broken behaviour. I've tried one solutions found here on Template:Wide image/proposal, but that removed the horizontal scroll bar. (Please feel free to edit that proposal page to try out a solution). +mt 18:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Strange.. I have IE7 but everything looks fine for me. Maybe it's the overflow:auto and overflow-y:hidden that conflict in a certain way? If so (I can't try it out) just get rid of the overflow:auto. That was added only to get rid of scrollbars if the picture does fit the screen. By the way this image above calls upon the template in my own namespace that I made earlier as a proposal. Freestyle 21:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I was trying a combination of the overflow, overflow-x, overflow-y with different orderings too, but nothing seemed to make it work. I have IE version 7.0.5730.11 under WinXP with all updates. I think the best solution is to replace "overflow:auto;overflow-y: hidden; overflow-x: auto;" with "overflow:auto;" to show the vertical scroll bar for IE7 users to view the remaining 13 or so pixels lingering at the bottom. This fix is compatible with Firefox 2. This fix using Template:Wide image/proposal can be viewed here:

A small journey through Germany

And, we could perhaps post a request at WP:VPT for an IE7 compatibility expert to find a better solution. Searching "overflow bug" I found 648,000 hits! I'm not great with this stuff (and I don't use IE often), but this should be patched up for better display for those users. +mt 23:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

If you'd make two optional parameters, one for the width and one for the height of the original image, you can let the template calculate the new height (for the div around the image) accordingly to the specified new width (hope I am understandable.. I'm not a native speaker). Then if these optional parameters would be specified the image should be displayed nicely in all browsers, without any vertical scrollbars. By the way I see now that I do also have this bug :S. Freestyle 12:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I did a remake of my remake :-D . The code is still here and you can see the result at the top of this post. I hope this one works. Freestyle 13:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC) P.s. Feel free to make any changes if necessary!

I discovered that the combination overflow-x:auto and overflow-y:hidden doesn't work well in IE7, while overflow-x:scroll and overflow-y:hidden work okay together (go figure...). Only thing is we have to accept now that the scrollbar will also be there if the image fits the users screen. Freestyle 13:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

That works just fine. We could also promote some of the information for a wide-scroll region into the default MediaWiki:Monobook.css, and include other information in the IE 7 fixes template. I'm not an expert, but I think it should look something like adding to MediaWiki:Monobook.css:

div.wide { /* show a horizontal scroll-bar if needed */
  width: 100%;
  overflow: auto;
}

and to http://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/monobook/IE70Fixes.css :

div.wide { /* show a horizontal scroll-bar */
  overflow-x: scroll;
  overflow-y: hidden;
}

This Wide image template would then be modified to use <div class="wide">...</div>. Again, I'm not an expert with CSS, and I'm not sure if this will work, or how exactly to test this out, so it may still need work. In the mean time, we should use User:Freestyle nl/wide image for this template. Any suggestions what to do next, and can anyone verify/fix this suggestion? +mt 20:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I've scrapped this idea, since it is too much work for what it's worth (and to refresh what that was: its purpose is to show an optional scrollbar on non-IE7 browser windows if the wide image fits within the browser window). Lets work with the simple fix at User:Freestyle nl/wide image (which I modified so it could be copied/pasted into this template by an admin). Does this look good? If so, add the {{edit protected}} then IE7 users will be able to see those extra hidden pixels. +mt 07:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the original remake-remake (before your changes) should've done okay also. It's actually even a bit better I guess because it stays closer to the original code for thumb-images like Mediawiki software creates. Advantages of this may be that when classes having to do with thumbs/captions/etc are modified (for any reason) this template will adjust correspondingly. Another advantage is that images that are smaller than the users' own screen width will be centered, instead of left-aligned. Freestyle 09:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, ... I was unsure what that code was about (sorry). If your sure that these are desirable and compatible changes, then revert my stuff and add the {{template doc}} to make it more clear for the admin to update the code. +mt 15:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

It should be okay now. Freestyle 10:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

New request

{{Editprotected}} It is requested that the current template be replaced with the code on this page. The code contains a fix for 'broken behavior' of the hidden vertical overflow in IE7, and some other changes to make the code more in correspondance with the code that is generated by Mediawiki software for thumb images. Please see the above discussion for more info. Freestyle 10:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 17:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Unclosed div tag

{{editprotected}} When the caption parameter is empty this template throws an unclosed div tag. You can see the problem in this version of Chicago Board of Trade Building. Mackensen (talk) 05:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I fixed the code at User:Freestyle nl/wide image, you can check here what I changed or just copy the entire code again. Freestyle 07:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Y Done. Thanks! Mackensen (talk) 10:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

NOT WORKING

There seems to be a problem with the wide image template. All the images that I used this template for are now wide thumbs and the article have to be scrolled horizontaly. Here is an example, Tourism in Norway and this Sydney Park. Its either the template or my computer isn't working properly. I hope this is not permanent, I kind of liked the wide images, sometimes.--Ad@m.J.W.C. 11:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

{{Editprotected}} Yes, it's not working anymore. There is no difference whether I use this template or not. {{Wide image/proposal}} example above looks great, why can't this one look like that? I suggest to undo whatever was done that changed this template.--Crzycheetah 03:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

According to Freestyle, use User:Freestyle nl/wide image instead. I believe it fixes the broken behaviour with IE7, and is set to go (i.e., Admin: copy and paste). This issue slipped my mind (sorry). +mt 04:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

copied and pasted. Thanks for making it easy. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• It's still not working. Can anyone fix it? 82.81.92.126 20:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

use of deprecated template

This template currently uses Template:Click, which is deprecated because it causes the page to break in screen readers for the disabled and some other browsers. (See Wikipedia:WikiProject Usability/Clickable images for more.) It appears that the only way to make the magnifying glass image link to a smaller version of the image is through Click. However, I think it may be possible to accomplish the same result by using text rather than an image. If anyone more familiar with this template sees a way to get the same result without affecting functionality, please make the appropriate changes and improve the accessibility of the website. Thanks, BanyanTree 01:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Why not just get rid of the magnifying glass? It serves no actual function. --B 22:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

As this is the only response, I have gone ahead and removed the image and template. Thank you, BanyanTree 13:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Better documentation?

The main page should explain/define better what the template does.

Also, why isn't the width parameter optional? If it's not set it should show the full width. 82.81.92.126 21:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

If you want, you could copy and paste the source of this template and start your own template on a new page, you would have to rename the template, Maybe the same name with a -3 at the end. -2 has been taken by myself. If you wanted to start you own page you will have to create a new account. Cheers_Ad@m.J.W.C. 23:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

other languages

missing in list:

da:Skabelon:Bredt billede —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.59.114.90 (talk) 19:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I've added that to the Template:Wide image/doc subpage. +mt 21:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Overflow scrolling in a table?

Can someone tell me how to put a wide image in a table so that it will scroll? The first example does and the second one doesn't for me using IE7 @ 1024X768.

{{wide image|Helsinki z00.jpg|1000px|[[Helsinki]] panorama.}}

Helsinki panorama.

{|
|
{{wide image|Helsinki z00.jpg|1000px|[[Helsinki]] panorama.}}
|}

Helsinki panorama.

RichardF (talk) 03:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you still looking for an answer to this after all this time? Try

{| style="width:100%; table-layout:fixed"
|
{{wide image|Helsinki z00.jpg|1000px|[[Helsinki]] panorama.}}
|}

Helsinki panorama.

Hesperian 04:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Hesperian! After my hard drive blew up last month, I switched from IE to Chrome. In any event, the table version I showed still doesn't work in Chrome and your solution does! The same goes for IE7. Your solution works for that too. :-) RichardF (talk) 02:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi! I've been trying to make the wide images work on previous as well as the current 1.13.3 installation but with mixed results. After copying Template:Wide_image from Wikipedia.org not much worked according to the examples in the documentation. The problems were: 1) The scrollable area was broken in a strange way I cannot easily describe, 2) the specified image size did not take effect, and 3) the caption display was broken and showed up as code instead. However, I've now found by the example with the CSS/style addition from Hesperian that the scrollable area as well as defining an image size works, although on IE7 as well as some Mozilla based browsers the horizontal scrollbar below the image appears even when the available width of the html block exceeds the width of the image, which I think is not meant to happen. Although I think this last point is a minor issue, I still encounter the strange effect in that the caption is not displayed as it should, either using the above mark-up or any other standard wide image mark-up as documented. Instead, the following code is displayed where the caption should normally appear:

{{ #if: Helsinki panorama.|
Helsinki panorama.
|}}

Has anyone experienced the same and know what the cause may be? Is perhaps another template required to display captions correctly for wide images?

--91.13.95.198 (talk) 18:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Request for new parameter

The template would be more useful if we had an option to set a default size for the scrolling window, as well as the size of the photo within the window. Sometimes it is useful to have a 1000-px image scrolling within a window that is only, say, 500 pixels wide.Northwesterner1 (talk) 19:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Y Done - the fourth parameter now allows you to directly change the width of the outer box (the inner one compensates appropriately). I also spotted and fixed a bug that would break the template under particular conditions. Nihiltres^{t.l} 22:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks. Northwesterner1 (talk) 22:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The new parameter is great, very useful, thank you! See how it improved Oregon Coast. But now it also has me thinking about how to use panorama images more effectively in page design. It would also be useful to add some of the other functionality that the regular image template has, especially left and right floating. One example: Hart Mountain. It's a cool image but doesn't really work for the page in its present format. I'd like to be able to put it in a 400-px window and float it on the right, just below the infobox. Northwesterner1 (talk) 22:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Yet another request for a new parameter

{{editprotected}} I think there should be a fifth right alignment parameter. Currently, you can sort of "hack" the wide image template as shown below to get the desired effect...

{{wide image|Helsinki z00.jpg|1800px|[[Helsinki]] panorama.|45%;float:right;margin-left:1em}}

Helsinki panorama.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Integer sem diam, aliquet vitae, commodo nec, ornare sed, libero. Maecenas rhoncus venenatis nibh. Curabitur auctor. Nam lobortis, augue ac venenatis scelerisque, elit leo pulvinar massa, et suscipit odio nunc et augue. Maecenas ac libero at lacus luctus iaculis. Ut nisi pede, venenatis id, cursus quis, commodo vitae, urna. In tincidunt risus at lorem. Vestibulum consectetuer, mi vel viverra sollicitudin, nibh metus commodo arcu, tincidunt vehicula augue ante ac dolor. Ut varius, tellus non vulputate consequat, enim lorem ornare sem, eu venenatis tortor magna quis nisl. Fusce pharetra. Nulla in mi. Morbi fringilla, nisl nec vehicula fermentum, nulla turpis pulvinar nulla, id sollicitudin quam ligula vitae justo.

This obviously works and looks great, however it would be nice to have another parameter that states (written in pseudo-code):
If the fifth parameter "right" exists, then add ";float:right;margin-left:1em"

Make sense? Seem reasonable/useful? If you don't think the addition of another parameter is wise, then I believe what I have shown above (adding things like ;float:right;margin-left:1em after the final width parameter) should at least be in the documentation... or another correct way of right aligning the wide image. Agree? -- Tkgd2007 (talk) 23:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Left and right setups are dead easy given your basic code: I simply add

{{#switch:{{{5}}}
|left=<nowiki> </nowiki>float:left;margin-right:1em;
|right=<nowiki> </nowiki>float:right;margin-left:1em
|#default=
}}

immediately after the semicolon of the main div's style setup. It's only worthwhile if {{{4}}} is set to something special, e.g. not 100%, so should I add an {{#if:{{{4|}}}| }} around that setup? Nihiltres^{t.l} 05:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

 Done. east.718 at 06:33, May 13, 2008

I figured it would be pretty simple. Thanks east718 for adding that parameter to the template so quickly! Tkgd2007 (talk) 06:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Editprotected

{{editprotected}} A new parameter was added and should be documented in the documentation for this template.—Tkgd2007 (talk) 23:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The documentation is at Template:Wide image/doc and is not protected. This setup is used so that fixes like this can be done without needing to wait for admin help. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Aaaah I see, I see. Thanks!--Tkgd2007 (talk) 03:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

If I understand the point of this template; it is to allow for an image that is wider than the viewer window to be displayed without having all the text span past the window as well; but this still creates a wide page (horizontal window scroll) with vast empty space.

I was wondering if perhaps there would be a way to mimic the functionality of the division used on at Tokyo#References to create a division, containing the image, that would scroll horizontally instead of vertically, and thus allow the user to scroll only the image, and not the whole page, thus removing the rest of the text from view as you view the image. TheHYPO (talk) 01:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

{{Panorama simple}}. --Geniac (talk) 19:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Well there you go; but my question is why this template exists when this alternative exists that displays the same intent much cleaner and viewer friendly. I would personally like to see this template depreciated into a redirect to that template. In addition, this template "see also"s {{Panorama}}, but not panorama simple, which is currently the template that works in IE; a user using IE who checks see also:Panorama will see the same effect and not not even notice panorama simple; I think at very least, panorama simple should be see-also linked here. TheHYPO (talk) 04:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Can't scroll when used with Navbox

The horizontal scrollbar doesn't consistently work when this template is used with the Navbox template. In particular, it works with Firefox 2, but not with Firefox 3 or with IE 7. Accordingly, the width of the image is not restricted to the page width as it should be, but instead it is the entire width of the image.

An example is included below. I tried troubleshooting this issue by varying the parameter values of both templates, and I also tried all other available Navbox templates, but the issue persists. Could either template be updated to address issue is addressed? Thanks.

--AB (talk) 01:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't work, because it's not supposed to work. It violates the HTML/CSS rules (that's why it no longer works in FF3 either). The image is include in a table that is "100% wide". That means that the table will then become as wide as required to encompass the image. Since the table is wide enough, no scrollbars are needed anymore. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't really solve the problem. --IO Device (talk) 00:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

And likely no one will be able to solve the problem. Neither navbox, nor wide image can be adapted to work with eachother. At most, you could write a new template from the ground up, that does something "like" this. But I don't even see the point in a navbox enclosing a wide image. There would be no article in the world, that would pass as a Featured article with a construct like that. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 10:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Please + vi interwiki

Add please interwiki vi:Tiêu bản:Toàn cảnh. Thanks. Thaisk (talk) 12:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Request for new parameter - position of the scroll widget in % of the distance

Or at least, a parameter left/right. Some images are more interesting on their right-hand side, no? :) --Mareklug ^talk 10:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Seconded, if at all possible. —WOFall (talk) 00:25, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Magnifying glass

{{editprotected}}
Because the new file syntax allows for a "link" argument, it should be possible to restore the magnifying glass. I propose to use this version. This diff shows the changes implemented. Any objections ? A test of this version is available here. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

BTW. i think that out of visual consistency, it is important that we add this for esp. our anon users. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Done —doesn't seem controversial. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 00:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

ALT text

Given the new requirement for ALT text at FAC, could the alt parameter please be added here? Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 10:45, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

I've added support for alt text to the sandbox as per WP:ALT, have tested the result with the testcases, and have documented the new behavior. The change adds the alt text "Enlarge" to the enlarge icon, and adds user-supplied alt text to the main image. Please install this. Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 07:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

 Done Let me know if there are any problems. Plastikspork (talk) 07:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

A Suggestion about alt

Presently alt text only works with Internet Explorer. I does not seem to work in Opera, Chrome, Firefox or Safari. There should probable be a note about that in the documentation. –droll [chat] 05:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Center caption?

I think that it would be a good idea if the caption were centered below the image. On a wide hi-res monitor the caption looks out of place way over on the left with only white space above. Look at Echo Peak for an example. To see how it looks on some monitors press Ctrl plus the - key a few times. Another possibility would be to fit the frame to the image when the frame is wider than the image but I have no idea how it could be done. –droll [chat] 07:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I have investigated the latter in the past, and basically, you HAVE to tell the template the maximum allowed width, or there is no way to constrain the thumb box. The align left/right +width option basically does that atm. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 10:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

It suddenly dawned on me that in the case of this specific template, with some "wizardry", I COULD constrain the maximum width of the thumbnail. This is now implemented. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Very nice. –droll [chat] 22:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Magnify alt text

{{editprotected}} The magnifier button in the default MediaWiki installation has an empty alt attribute and an anchor with title attribute of "Enlarge". I've made a change to the sandbox that will make the same for this template. — Dispenser 19:34, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. — RockMFR 19:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Isn't this an error in the default MediaWiki installation? The W3C guidelines say that since the magnifier button has a function, it should have alt text. Eubulides (talk) 06:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... I'd recommend filing a bug about it. If it gets changed in MediaWiki, we can change it back here. — RockMFR 15:59, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I can't easily file bugs since I don't have an account and don't particularly want to get one. But even if it's not a bug in MediaWiki, there is still an argument for changing it back here. With the new behavior, the Altviewer reports the magnifier button with a red rectangle, indicating a problem. (The Altviewer doesn't do that for the MediaWiki magnifiers; I don't know why.) With the previous behavior, the Altviewer didn't report a problem. So this change is making it harder to review article alt text. See, for example, the red rectangle in the Altviewer analysis of Thomas R. Marshall (a featured article candidate I just now was reviewing for alt text). Eubulides (talk) 06:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh that's because I white list everything in /skins-1.5/ and /w/extensions/ directories. — Dispenser 04:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Left/right margins

Can we please have left/right margins for the frame/image? If aligned to the right, then there should be a left-margin of about 10 pixels; if aligned to the left, then a right-margin of about 10 pixels, so that text does not touch the box. Gary King (talk) 06:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the template already does have these. It uses the normal tright and tleft thumbnail classes. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The margin-left: auto; margin-right:auto; overrides those margins. Gary King (talk) 20:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. Well spotted ! —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Broken

Did something happen to this template today ? The images appear very narrow now. Shyamal (talk) 15:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Shyamal, what browser are you using? On Firefox v.3.5.5, they are very narrow, but on Internet Explorer v.6 SP3, they are still wide! 78.32.143.113 (talk) 16:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

It was due to changes to {{Str len}}. I have reverted the changes, they will need a new review. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 16:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for finding the problem. (Yes, it was Firefox) Shyamal (talk) 04:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Outline

This template would benefit from the CSS outline: 0; being applied to the a, which would prevent the generation of superfluous scrollbars for images not already generating horizontal overflow, and for vertical overflow regardless. I could make this change, but some dope has blocked the template from being edited. ¦ Reisio (talk) 15:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't that give accessibility issues ? Also, http://webaim.org/blog/plague-of-outline-0/ do you have specifics about which browsers are stupid enough to run into trouble here, and perhaps a screenshot ? —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 16:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it absolutely yields accessibility issues, but since I can't edit this template, there is no possible way for me to fix it properly — so I have given you template barons a simple fix that your feeble power-hording minds will be able to manage. Wikipedia is a great bastion of inaccessibility; we may as well not have superfluous scrollbars while we're at it. (Manifestation in Firefox) ¦ Reisio (talk) 03:03, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Template:Wide image/sandbox and Template:Wide image/testcases are at your full disposal. As you are well aware, we simply have too many vandals to allow even our autoconfirmed users unlimited access to most templates, the effects would simply be too devastating. There is a sandbox, and you can use it to prepare your edits for deployment. At the moment you are simply not illustrating your suggestions enough in order for other editors to review them properly. If you had simply answered the question, this might have already been fixed by now. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:40, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I have figured out that there were two bugs in the template. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:30, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah I see what you mean now. You mean that under Firefox 3.5, the focusring for links adds width to the image, causing the overflow to trigger, showing scrollbars. I'll see if I can find a way to avoid this, otherwise I guess blocking outline will have to do :( —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

P.S., most templates have sandboxes and testcases. Just so you know. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 16:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I supposed I could make all my contributions somewhere else. :p ¦ Reisio (talk) 03:03, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes you can. And if you continue to interact with editors on this tone, then it might be a good idea to make use of those alternatives. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:40, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Edit request from WOFall, 25 May 2010, Option to Hide Scrollbar

{{editprotected}} I'm hoping for an option to hide the vertical (edit: horizontal) scrollbar. I am not good at wiki, but something like the following change should work.

<div class="overflowbugx" style="overflow:auto;">

to

<div class="overflowbugx" style="overflow:{{{scrollbars|auto}}};">

This would allow adding the argument scrollbars=hidden in order to hide the vertical horizontal scrollbar. Maybe this is a long shot, but thanks for considering. Example usage. WOFall (talk) 00:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

This uses a standard ‘thumb’ (thumb is much too slim)

This loads a wide image and hides the right side

This doesn't hide the scrollbar

That would seem to work. But please allow people some time to comment on the proposal before using requesting the edit. Feel free to reactivate the request later when there is support (or no comments). — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 03:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, sorry about that. I didn't realize there was a distinction between requesting and starting a discussion. So then, any support? —WOFall (talk) 19:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The only people who should have vertical scrollbars are IE users as far as I'm aware. Scrollbar behavior is actually quite complicated. PS. why would you use Wide-image at all in that use case ? I'd just use a normal thumb in this use case. Wide image is for displaying 2000px images in a 500px frame or something similar. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I realize this is a niche scenario, and perhaps I should've explained why it might be useful. I don't mean to spam, but I think it's easiest that I demonstrate with the example to the right. As you can see, the actual thumbnail is very wide. I want to ‘crop’ it, and [[image]] only allows scaling, leading to the normal thumb being very slim. Using wide-image I can ‘hide’ the right half of the image by simply removing the scrollbars. If there is a better way to do this, I'd love to know. —WOFall (talk) 23:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, you want to hide the horizontal scrollbar, not the vertical one as you stated earlier. I believe it is better to use a crop template in this usecase. See for instance {{Css Image Crop}}. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:36, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Woops, yes I did mean horizontal, sorry. {{Css Image Crop}} looks like what I should be using. Unfortunately right-aligning seems to be broken there, but I'll move my discussion elsewhere. Thanks. —WOFall (talk) 18:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Specify center point

Would it be possible to specify what will be at the center of the initial display of the panorama? __meco (talk) 21:47, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry

I really don't know where I can make this question. I need to set a vertical scroll on a table but I want that the scrollbar appear if the table height is more than a value, if it's less than it I'd like that nothing appear. Is it possible? Ths is for a project I'm realizing with wiki software out of wikipedia. Thank you very much. --F.noceti (talk) 07:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC)