Module:Main page image is permanently protected from editing because it is a heavily used or highly visible module. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by consensus, editors may use ((edit protected)) to notify an administrator to make the requested edit.
ProcrastinatingReader, now that we have overcome the challenge of adoption. I wonder if there is not a better way of calculating size. The best way to calculate the image size is actually by area. Could you rewrite this module to calculate the width size that would return an image occupying a surface area equal to 140x140 = 19,600? Note, this is approximately the same size as 120x160 or 160x120 = 19,200. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 15:37, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Coffeeandcrumbs, sorry, I don't quite follow. How would this work? And what's the visible difference over the current way of doing it? And how would it know whether to be upright or not since both 120x160 and 160x120 are 19,200 pixels? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:06, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ProcrastinatingReader Did you have a chance to review the new code in the sandbox. If you have no objections, I am going to make a request to implement it. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:24, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Coffeeandcrumbs, yes, sorry. I was fiddling around with how it would look with the TFA yesterday, see User:ProcrastinatingReader/sandbox3. Code wise it's fine. Functionality wise, I'd only note that a) it can result in varying widths (which I suppose is the point) and b) for some dimensions, like the example in sandbox, can be fairly small and result in the caption looking a bit messy (seems to vary for different browsers, looks worse in Safari than Chrome for me). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:39, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point. Code wise looks fine to me - good work, and nice formula! I've made a very small edit (since the variable is already declared). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:07, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Request
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
I think, since this would result in a visual change to the Main Page (ie, in image sizes), this may require a discussion at Talk:Main Page. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:57, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@ProcrastinatingReader: take a look at Special:PermaLink/995467810 with Firefox if you can? The first image (which is on MP right now) looks horrible on my screen, see screenshot below. Not using this module seems to make the problem go away.
@Cwmhiraeth: FYI, I replaced the DYK image you had from queue1 with a non transparent version that seems to have at least temporarily fixed the MP distoration, please also see above if you have additional information. — xaosfluxTalk 05:14, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't trying to "blame" anyone (inc Ravenpuff now) - just an FYI in case anyone wanted to know why I jumped in to making a MP change. — xaosfluxTalk 06:29, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@ProcrastinatingReader: hmm, can't figure out the cause yet -- but it doesn't seem to be the width calculator module after more testing (c.f. Special:PermaLink/995540876 - I'm only seeing the image corrupted when width=154). — xaosfluxTalk 16:33, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
FYI was on ERRORS as well (don't think they know this is how it was fixed - but it's at least not a xaosflux-only problem!) (Special:PermaLink/995517095). — xaosfluxTalk 19:59, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strange. Also strange that I cannot reproduce.
I'm only seeing the image corrupted when width=154 Curious: if you manually inspect element Test2 (which isn't broken) to width 154 it breaks? If no, does changing it to 154 in the source break it? If yes to either, how about 150 or 152? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:31, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Image width calculation for .ogg file results in "-nanpx"[edit]
This image call is currently on the main page: ((main page image/OTD|File:O Canada instrumental 1916.ogg|"O Canada")). It results in [[File:O Canada instrumental 1916.ogg|-nanpx |"O Canada" ]]. My suspicion is that the automatic width calculation in this module may be causing this invalid size specification. If so, some error-checking and a default value may be needed here. To verify this, try ((#invoke:Main_page_image|width|O Canada instrumental 1916.ogg)); when I do it, the result is -nan. Pinging MSGJ, who made changes to that code most recently. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:15, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The formula on line 16 appears to be convoluted? It seems to be the equivalent of math.floor(140 * math.sqrt( page.file.width / page.file.height ) + 0.5), which reads much more simply to me. The new code also makes it obvious to passers-by what exactly this code is trying to do: downsize the image to an area of 19,600 pixels, preserving aspect ratio. Can the formula on line 16 be changed to the requested code above? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 02:46, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]