Talk:Chest pain in children

Image size

I have to question the justification for 500px in the size of this image. Even at that size, the labels on the graph's X axis are unreadable, so what use is it to enlarge the graph? Can the reader glean any understanding from the graph without those labels? I would suggest letting the size default, and the reader can click through to the full-size image if they want to view the graph. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:41, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I must quietly disagree. I am currently editing the graph to make the labels on the x-axis more readable. The graph is key; its main point is to visually demonstrate the relative rarity of cardiac causes of chest pain in children. Since one of the major effects of chest pain in children is anxiety and stress, there is the potential that visualizing this information will illustrate that pediatric chest pain related to the heart is rare. A graph is a picture. Since I try to write for eighth-graders, an image will convey the information in a more engaging way. Um...you don't like images larger than a thumbnail? The Very Best of Regards,

Barbara (WVS) (talk) 13:59, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

More precisely, I don't like images larger than the default without justification. If you can make the labels readable at 500px, and you feel it's really important to save the reader one click that would give them a better look at the graph, I'm good. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:11, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Also, again, I question the justification for a fixed size instead of one proportional to the user pref, for the reasons explained at WP:THUMBSIZE. For a majority of readers, upright=2.3 would give 506px. If a user has changed their pref up or down, it's usually for good reason, such as the size of the display they most often use to access Wikipedia. To use a fixed size is to take that control away from them, and that's why the guideline says there should be "very good reason" to do that. The guideline results from tons of discussion between experienced and knowledgeable editors, it represents current community consensus, and I don't think it should be disregarded simply because one doesn't see the point or disagrees with it. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:33, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for giving me more guidance and some excellent advice. I con't completely understand how to format with the "upright=2.3" parameter. If you would be so kind as to insert that into the code, I would gladly learn from you and be appreciative for the constructive edit. Of course, I will take your word on the 'current community census' about the words 'very good reason' since it never even occurred to me that there would have been such a discussion, it seemed a minor point to me. I typically don't search archives for discussions of community consensus on the use of three words used in succession, and figure if it is 'wrong' I will hear about it. As for having a very good reason for a large image, I tried to answer that above. I consider myself an experienced and knowledgeable editor in addition to all those who came to a consensus on the three word phrase, so I might have a bad attitude in recognizing the expertise of others, my peers. I deeply respect your opinion, though and trust that you will allow me to come up with a better image. I used Excel to generate the graph, but it looks like I would do better to produce another version with bigger fonts so that it could be a reduced size - that would probably make us both happier. Happy Holidays! Respectfully and with The Very Best of Regards,

Barbara (WVS) (talk) 15:07, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

 Done ―Mandruss ☎ 16:23, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Update: Lacking any time estimate for a new version, I have removed the upright=2.3 to use the default size for the thumbnail, in this edit. That diff shows how to do it, when there is an image whose thumbnail would be usable at an increased size. Even then, at least consider leaving it at default and letting readers click-thru. These aren't magazine articles where the size image you see is all that's available to you. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:34, 3 January 2016 (UTC)