Revision as of 15:38, 11 August 2020 edit Coffeeandcrumbs (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers 31,910 edits m ce ← Previous edit		Revision as of 11:06, 12 August 2020 edit undo ProcrastinatingReader (talk \| contribs) Edit filter managers, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors 28,836 edits →Calculate by area: Replying to Coffeeandcrumbs (using reply-link) Next edit →
Line 2: == Calculate by area == {{u\|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. --- [[User talk:Coffeeandcrumbs\|<span style="color:blue;">C</span>]]&[[Special:Contributions/Coffeeandcrumbs\|<span style="color:#663366;">C</span> (]][[User talk:Coffeeandcrumbs\|<span style="color:#ba0000">Coffeeandcrumbs</span>]]) 15:37, 11 August 2020 (UTC) :{{u\|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? [[User:ProcrastinatingReader\|ProcrastinatingReader]] ([[User talk:ProcrastinatingReader\|talk]]) 11:06, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Module talk:Main page image: Difference between revisions