Category talk:Large drawings

Defining a large drawing

I think we should define very clearly what a large comic IS and what isn't. Chess Zoo doesn't seem large at all to me, yet it's in this category. Also, why is Escape Speed not listed, yet Hoverboard is? I don't think neither of these should be here, they already have a category of their own, Category:Interactive comics. Obviously an interactive comic is going to be bigger than a normal comic, but imo that doesn't mean most interactive exploration-type comics should be added here. Also, this category is being added to many pages which could be considered "large" in some exotic meaning of the word, but I don't have examples of that that i remember. Thoughs? --FaviFake (talk) 18:37, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

I would suggest thinking of the screen real-estate the intended comic-to-view takes up.

If you need to scroll the browser (on a reasonably modern resolution of PC monitor) to see all the way down an extra-tall comic (1732: Earth Temperature Timeline?), or you are explicitly invited to access the less-cramped version (1688: Map Age Guide?), it is Large.

Merely having a _2x that won't fit (as many may) doesn't count, if the non-2x is perfectly readable.

Similarly a "viewport" on an interactive world is, in all cases I know of, more or less, handily fit within the user's screen... (I have had personal problem with, e.g. 2916: Machine needing a bit of creative scrolling to see the whole viewport/clickable area, when using my tablet (landscape orientation), but that might be because of the aspect ratio and the space above and below the core rendered page being taken up with browser+OS 'screen decoration'. I'm faily sure it's intended to fit nicely within a wide range of screens. And absolutely no issues viewing on desktop without 'Android decorations' on-screen.)

Yes, some "large, roving world" interactive comics may well have cmparatively huge 'raw' image-tiles behind them (and positively gigantic if you edit them all together into one, for your own fun), but that's a feature of being Interactive such that it makes the normal-size viewport need to load less sub-tiles at any one point.

We could survey comic-sizes (both non-2x and _2x images, plus any _large or others) and try to establish pixel counts (width, height and/or width*height) that seem reasonable limits. And, under my above criteria, I'd include something like 1052: Every Major's Terrible and 819: Five-Minute Comics: Part 1 as probably "large", though each (or most) individual panels arrayed around the image of the comic are well within a displayable window. I think that some of the 1037: Umwelt on-demand comic versions would also count, but I haven't tried to experience them directly to be sure about that. Both of these might go against the current specification of what is Large, so take this bit of personal perspective with a grain of nackle!

It's going to still be very subjective though. Whether we narrow it down and give values to aim for (so 2 pixels shorter than a certain height, it isn't; 2 pixels longer, it is!) or not, someone will either disagree about the comic or disagree about the threshold... ;) 172.70.86.129 22:21, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree with the definition you gave, but yeah I'm not sure how to set a standard. If we add 819: Five-Minute Comics: Part 1, I'm sure there are going to be other comics that are larger that 819 but not by a lot. I think is should required a LOT of scrolling, like three screens worth of scrolling. By that logic, Chess Zoo and Five-Minute Comics: Part 1 wouldn't count. But yeah this definitely shouldn't include interactive comics. --FaviFake (talk) 18:26, 30 January 2025 (UTC)