Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2019-03-31/Featured content

Page size[edit]

This page has a download size of 5.1 MB (per [1]). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:11, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Or reading this page alone would cost a typical reader roughly the same as buying an actual newspaper. Why the giant images? ‑ Iridescent 16:17, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I could buy a paper (in the UK) for 8 US cents! Are newspapers as cheap as even the top price (Canada) anywhere? Does it work the same on the mobile site? My question is - why the tiny tiny images everywhere else on WP? Johnbod (talk) 22:26, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Pigsonthewing, Iridescent, and Johnbod: I've been caught unaware here. I had no idea this was a problem. Looking at the above sites it seems to say that the "cost" of this page in the US in USD is $0.47. Can that be right? My internet bill is bundled with other things and even considering that seems to be intentionally scrambled and re-scrambled by the provider. Still, I must view 1,000s of pages a month and my total bill is nowhere close to what 47 cents per page implies. I do (or did) agree with what Johnbod implies - that we should have larger pix on WP. Sometimes WP looks like a 1950s encyclopedia with all those tiny images. If you want to write this up in detail and explore how this effects Wikipedia and its readers, please consider submitting a piece to The Signpost. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:29, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It might be 'right' on the least efficient data plans you can get on mobile, but most people I know that are concerned about data costs/data usage make efforts to get on wifi networks with unmetered connections. I'm in Canada, supposedly the costliest country there, and there's no way it costs me 0.59 cents for 5.1 MB of data. I pay $58 for 4GB on a mobile plan (and that's with other features, like unlimited text/long distance across North America) which amounts to 0.07 cents.

That's not to say we shouldn't make efforts to be mindful of those with shittier/more expensive plans, or less disposable income, but if you're opening up Featured content... well you should expect lots of pictures, IMO. Having some warning (Note: This page features several large hi-quality images which can use an estimated 5.1 MB of data.) in the blurb might be a good idea, though. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:58, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1989 Tour photo[edit]

Maybe choose a different photo from the article that was actually taken during the Tour (LeMond during the time trial for instance) instead of the one during the Giro? Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:41, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]