Talk:Common thumbnail sizes

Wikisource not showing scan images

Since yesterday, on Wikisource's Page namespace, I cannot see the scan image any more. The error in console points to this page:

Failed to load resource: the server responded with a status of 429 (Use thumbnail steps listed on https://w.wiki/GHai. Please contact noc@wikimedia.org for further information (a765913))`

This happens to me in all Wikisources, although it doesn't seem to affect all users.

Is it possible that ProofreadPage was not adapted to use the standard thumbnail sizes?

@Samwilson, @Bawolff, can you guys do something about it?

Thanks, Candalua (talk) 14:15, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

@Candalua: Can you give an example of a page where you encounter this? I used Special:Random/Page to get https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:United_States_Statutes_at_Large_Volume_18_Part_1.djvu/1121 which loaded fine. Is this possibly caused by a gadget or user script? Jdforrester (WMF) (talk) 15:47, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

@Jdforrester (WMF): any page. I get that error on the page you linked. Same thing when I'm not logged, from incognito mode, and safemode too. if it helps, the URI that gives 429 is: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/52/United_States_Statutes_at_Large_Volume_18_Part_1.djvu/page1121-1024px-United_States_Statutes_at_Large_Volume_18_Part_1.djvu.jpg. Clicking on the Image tab gives the same error, although the URI changes slightly: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/52/United_States_Statutes_at_Large_Volume_18_Part_1.djvu/page1121-1777px-United_States_Statutes_at_Large_Volume_18_Part_1.djvu.jpg.

On it.wikisource, I get the same error on all pages, like here: https://it.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Pagina:Cekhov_-_Novelle,_Torino,_UTET,_1957.djvu/97&action=edit&redlink=1 but for some strange reason the Image tabs work, like this one: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4a/Cekhov_-_Novelle%2C_Torino%2C_UTET%2C_1957.djvu/page97-1105px-Cekhov_-_Novelle%2C_Torino%2C_UTET%2C_1957.djvu.jpg Candalua (talk) 16:02, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

@Candalua: That's most odd, sorry. On each of those pages it works for me. Possibly this is a localised data-caching issue? Jdforrester (WMF) (talk) 16:08, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

429 may mean your web browser is being misidentified as a bot or something Bawolff (talk) 16:12, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Same error for me.

Another hint:

this linkhttps://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/09/Forum_Nerva_-_Rome_%28IT62%29_-_2021-08-25_-_1.jpg/120px-Forum_Nerva_-_Rome_%28IT62%29_-_2021-08-25_-_1.jpg

works (resolution 120px)

this link

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/09/Forum_Nerva_-_Rome_%28IT62%29_-_2021-08-25_-_1.jpg/80px-Forum_Nerva_-_Rome_%28IT62%29_-_2021-08-25_-_1.jpg

does not (resolution 80px).

I tried some resolutions and seems like the only working are 120, 200, 400, 500 and 600. (Maybe some more but I can't try them all :) )

Note: I noticed this problem only when connecting from the pc with zscaler active Arkas000 (talk) 16:44, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

@Arkas000 This is phab:T416620 —TheDJ (Not WMF) (talk • contribs) 07:08, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

@Jdforrester (WMF), @Bawolff, @TheDJ: I confirm what @Arkas000 said: the standard resolutions work for me, while the non-standard ones mostly don't work. It is probably triggered by some weird firewall rules, although it's strange that some requests can still pass through, while being perfectly similar to others that are blocked. Anyway, I hope this will get fixed with phab:T416620. Thank you, Candalua (talk) 10:47, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't know about you but I'm getting this a lot on wikipedia and e.g. [1] gives 429s for literally every size except the original one. Which is a little bit comedic to me. Is a viewer of Wikipedia supposed to edit the URL by hand to see the image? --~2026-10306-08 (talk) 13:37, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Size of this JPG preview of this TIF file: 497 × 599 pixels. Other resolutions: 199 × 240 pixels | 398 × 480 pixels | 637 × 768 pixels | 849 × 1,024 pixels | 1,698 × 2,048 pixels | 3,943 × 4,755 pixels

Why not computer standard sizes?

Current standard sizes in Wikimedia production: 20px, 40px, 60px, 120px, 250px, 330px, 500px, 960px, 1280px, 1920px, 3840px

Why not computer standard sizes? 32px, 64px, 128px, 256px? --~2026-23131-88 (talk) 13:04, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-23131-88 what would be the benefit of that ? —TheDJ (Not WMF) (talk • contribs) 10:49, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

I agree with the poster, not having sizes be the standard powers of two is very unusual. Computers are more well-equipped to deal with images of these sizes and a lot of people, including myself, are acclimated to specifying sizes with them over, um, whatever the completely arbitrary numbers we're using now are. — rae^5e <talk> 17:19, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Toolbar and inline text are missing

The #Applications section is listing possible purposes, but two are missing:

1. Toolbars, but those might be standardized as 20px now.
2. Inline text, markers inserted into floating text by JS or even CSS:content-like to indicate something, but 20px are much too large for that.

One appropriate size about 12px or 10px or 15px is required.

The entire list is written from MW generated point of view only, but entirely ignoring all gadgets, which create strange little things even as graphics.

Hopefully – PerfektesChaos (talk) 21:49, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

For CSS inserted icons the native size is required.

• When HTML elements are created by JavaScript they could provide width and height as attributes of img, but CSS content etc. needs an URL.

Any sign of life would be nice. --PerfektesChaos (talk) 05:24, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean ? You can set width and height for CSS as well and you should do so whenever you want to use images (this also prevents relayout problems). And this is indeed not meant to document every single possible image size in the world, just those produced by mediawiki. —TheDJ (Not WMF) (talk • contribs) 09:50, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Measure twice, cut once

Every day, I encounter new problems caused by hastily removed thumbnail sizes. Although I clearly see the rationale behind this move, the whole operation affects too much things, that haven't been remeditated properly beforehand. (Or addressed more widely, at least.)

• user scripts / toolbar icons disappearing (see above)
• I'm unable to scale properly some images on Commons (imagine large panoramas, 40000px wide: even 3840 is not enough to see , but the full resolution could reach 100 MB per image); I used to hardtype e.g. 20000px resolution (which decreased dramatically the overall downloaded data)
  • if this was retained at least for logged-in experienced users, it would help a lot
• MediaViewer: ?phab:T426246
  • images, which are smaller than the screen, are loaded upscaled, thus blurry
  • images are generally loaded slower (in many cases, only original size of the image is disponible)
• direct links to upload.wikimedia/ images not working anymore.

--Draceane (talk) 13:38, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Strongly support the request by Draceane, especially concerning panoramas and — in my case — high-resolution SVG maps: 3840px in many cases is not enough. I used to type 5000px, or 8000px, or any multiple of the image width, but not anymore. — 2dk (talk) 17:54, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

That big panoramas can not be adequately shown anymore is a real loss. This image is an example. This page uses it as an example image (below one that looks better). Isn't there usually an implicit promise, that technical changes will not break things, that already work? --Watchduck (talk) 18:55, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Another example is cs:Tapisérie_z_Bayeux#Výpovědní_hodnota: 3840px is way too small for displaying the Tapestry of Bayeux. @Jdforrester (WMF), Ladsgroup, and Krinkle: Draceane (talk) 17:10, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

@Draceane: I agree that it's terrible for readers to try to show them a wide image, when most users' phones are only ~300px wide. Perhaps articles should not try to show extremely wide (or tall) images, but instead show them as a series of smaller images that can be reasonably seen. This is of course a content issue, for the community decide and not me as staff. Jdforrester (WMF) (talk) 14:31, 8 September 2026 (UTC)