This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments or questions on this topic should be made in a new Senate Hall page rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record. Graestan(Talk) 13:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
I have come across a problem that may have been addressed before, and thought I'd bring it up here in case a consensus is already reached on this matter and I'm just blind. We can always move it to CT later if need be...
Whilst reading the Dantooine article I noticed that a few of the images were appearing in the wrong place or causing formatting problems through the article. After a few attempts at editing the problems away I realised it was because of the width of the page was causing less lines of text and therefore the images get 'bunched up' together and, because they 'float' at the right or left, they push each other away from their specified locations.
I checked Ryloth and a few other planet articles and found similar problems. I am currently using 1440x900 (at my office) which is by no means a common screen resolution, but this is not a high-end machine and these 'widescreen' monitors and screen resolutions are becoming more popular. I think the most common screen resolution currently is probably 1024x768, and I haven't noticed these problems on my home computer which uses 1280x1024 so I'm assuming that this formatting problem actually only affects a very small amount of users.
Do we have any way of finding out visitor statistics such as screen resolutions? If only, say, 5% of users are using anything bigger that 1280 width then there isn't much point worrying about it just yet.
--— beeurd talk 20:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
I, for one, also use a 1440x900 screen resolution, and it's a more common resolution than many people might think. Many mid-size (around 17-inch) widescreen monitors have a native resolution of 1440x900. Some users, like myself, put the {{user resolution}} userbox on their user page to indicate what resolution they use. You can find a list of them here. I have noticed these formatting issues myself. Anyone else want to chime in? Master JonathanJedi Council Chambers 04:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- I have a 1920x1200 screen, though I keep Firefox to about 1528px wide, and I'm not seeing any problems there. They're closely packed, as the picture-to-text ratio is absurdly high, but they're not pushing each other around on either Dantooine or Ryloth, unless the Doneeta image is pushing the EAW one down. It would be useful to take a resolution census, but I think the general answer to the problem is to avoid overcrowding articles with more images than the text can support in the first place. It's not as if those articles couldn't be easily expanded to support that number of images. Havac 05:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Speaking of a resolution census, I just did one. Here's the results:
- 1024x768 – 34 users (35.79%)
- 1152x864 – 1 user (1.05%)
- 1200x800 – 1 user (1.05%)
- 1200x960 – 1 user (1.05%)
- 1280x800 – 10 users (10.53%)
- 1280x1024 – 27 users (28.42%)
- 1440x900 – 7 users (7.37%)
- 1440x1050 – 1 user (1.05%)
- 1600x1200 – 3 users (3.16%)
- 1680x1050 – 9 users (9.47%)
- 1920x1200 – 4 users (4.21%)
- 2560x1600 – 1 user (1.05%)
- "constantly changing" – 1 user (1.05%)
- 1440 or wider – 24 users (25.26%)
- Notable users with 1600 or wider: Jaymach (1600x1200), Xwing328 (1680x1050), Green tentacle (1680x1050), Havac (1920x1200, but see note above), and Darth Culator (1600x1200 and 1920x1200).
Total users surveyed: 95 (five users each reported two different resolutions)
(Based on all users with a {{user resolution}} userbox on their userpage as of 06:00 UTC, March 16, 2009)
If 95 can be considered a representative sample, then it seems that about a quarter of our users use 1440 or wider, and a little over 15% use 1600 or wider, including the five major contributors mentioned above. There's the info; dissect it however you wish. Master JonathanJedi Council Chambers 06:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Wow, nice job, lol. While it is only a representative sample of registered users who filled in their user page, it does show that the wider resolutions are more common than I thought. Like Havac said above we could simple expand the articles, but not all of them might have enough info and may have to have images removed. Hmm, we should probably work on the image density in articles a bit. — beeurd talk 15:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)