Talk:Monarchy of Canada: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 21:48, 22 September 2008 editG2bambino (talk \| contribs)19,847 edits →Images (x3)← Previous edit		Revision as of 21:53, 22 September 2008 edit undoRoux (talk \| contribs)23,636 edits →Images (x3): rNext edit →
Line 343:		Line 343:
	:::::...Riiiiiiiiiiight. Well, I've asked ] to drop by and clarify before his honeymoon. ]<sup>] \| ]</sup> 21:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)		:::::...Riiiiiiiiiiight. Well, I've asked ] to drop by and clarify before his honeymoon. ]<sup>] \| ]</sup> 21:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::::Indeed, it is right. Please don't be sarcastic, as though what I'm saying is the ranting of a loopy moron. --] (]) 21:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)		::::::Indeed, it is right. Please don't be sarcastic, as though what I'm saying is the ranting of a loopy moron. --] (]) 21:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
			:::::::Sarcastic, yes. Other than that, kindly do not put words in my mouth or ascribe motivations to me that are not true. Ok? Good. ]<sup>] \| ]</sup> 21:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:53, 22 September 2008

Monarchy of Canada is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
August 21, 2005	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
April 17, 2006	Good article nominee	Not listed
April 24, 2006	Peer review	Reviewed
February 23, 2007	Featured topic candidate	Not promoted
Current status: Former featured article candidate

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Canada: Governments Top‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Governments of Canada.

Commonwealth

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Commonwealth, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Commonwealth of Nations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CommonwealthWikipedia:WikiProject CommonwealthTemplate:WikiProject CommonwealthCommonwealth

Archives

Images

User:PrinceOfCanada has requested that a discussion about the images on this article no longer take place at his talk page; the discussion is thus moving to here. At the last point, PrinceOfCanada was asked to explain why left-aligned images can not go at the end of a section. --G2bambino (talk) 18:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Stop being dishonest. I requested that you no longer post at my talk page. As for left-aligned images, I never at any point said that they 'cannot' go at the end of a section. However, you placing them at the end of a section, as I have tried patiently to explain to you on repeated occasions, is a form of formatting that you can only guarantee looks correct on your computer. Prince of Canada 18:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Strange. Earlier it wasn't a matter of correctness, it was, as you put it, "common sense." Before we continue, can you be clear on which version of your objection you'd like to stick to? --G2bambino (talk) 18:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

It's both. Can the snark. Prince of Canada 18:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Both now? Well, we can dismiss "common sense" because what you think is common sense is not what everyone else thinks it is. So, that leaves us with correctness. From your statements one can only deduce that you see some kind of "incorrectness" when left-aligned images are placed at the end of sections. Could you elaborate, please? --G2bambino (talk) 18:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh. Nobody thinks it's common sense to have images in the sections to which they are most relevant? Wonderful, then I'll move the image of EIIR's wedding on her page down to her Arms section, shall I? Don't be ridiculous. As to elaboration? No. I have explained to you a dozen times how formatting works. That you are functionally incapable of comprehending it is not my concern, though I doubt, based on your history, that you are so much 'incapable' as 'pretending not to'. Your usual 'debating' style is to wear down your opponent with irrelevancies, ignoring what they say, and needless pedantry until they give in. I have made my point clear on my talk page; I suggest you re-read it. Prince of Canada 19:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say anything of the sort. But you are mixing up your contexts: are you speaking about page space or html space? You seem to have an issue with left-aligned images being placed at the end of the preceeding section to which they're relevant. As they appear perfectly close enough to the section to which they're related in page space (right, smack in it, in fact), the mystery is: why can't they go at the end of the preceeding section in html? --G2bambino (talk) 19:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Because you're playing games, and you know it. You have some sort of deep-seated need, apparently, to have left-aligned images. When it is pointed out to you that left-aligned images at the beginning of sections look awkward (due to title placement), you merely move them two lines up, which on most computers will appear the same. Why? Because the image begins rendering where the code is. In this case, at the bottom of the section. With no text after it, the image will 'push' down into the next section, resulting in looking almost precisely the same as having it in the correct section and left-aligned. And again, because of the way formatting works, it makes more sense for the code for images to be contained in the relevant section. Of course, you know all this, which is precisely why you placed the images there, to score some sort of point. Prince of Canada 19:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

If you think that trying to sort something out is playing games, then, sure, whatever you want. But, what we call it is irrelevant. I moved the images because you said they weren't supposed to be there, and that claim was backed up by WP guidelines; and, yes, it altered the header placement; and, yes, the altered header placement was the only change. But, so what? The cheatsheet simply said that an image shouldn't (note the inherent flexibility in the word) be at the top left of a section, not that it can't be at the bottom of the preceeding. In fact, what the Manual of Style says (trumping your user-created cheatsheet) is "Do not place left-aligned images directly below subsection-level... headings, as this can disconnect the heading from the text it precedes." So, what I had done before did violate this, but the moves I made after fit the letter of the manual to a tee. Thus, you haven't a leg to stand on here. --G2bambino (talk) 19:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

This is your typical wikilawyering; following the letter while ignoring the spirit. "as this can disconnect the heading from the text it precedes." can also happen when the image is placed at the end of the section, depending on screen resolution, and cannot happen when right-aligned in the section it actually belongs in for the very simple code reasons I have already explained to you. Why do you ignore everything that's said to you? Prince of Canada 20:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Disagreeing isn't ignoring. Try again. --G2bambino (talk) 20:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I sure liked to help end this dispute, but I haven't a clue what the dispute is about. Perhaps it's best to let you both work it out. GoodDay (talk) 19:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Look at my talk page, GoodDay. Prince of Canada 19:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I've ran into something like this before. Images on my screen weren't presented the same on another's screen. If I remember correctly? I agreed to allow the image to be shown so as it appeared OK on the other person screen. I figured it was a sacrifice I could live with. PS- Would it be possible if both of you presented your image examples here - so I could peek at them? GoodDay (talk) 19:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for attempting assistance, GD, but that isn't really what this particular discussion is about (if I'm reading PoC's words correctly). What you're alluding to is more what's been going on at Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, and PoC already knows how it appears on other people's screens. --G2bambino (talk) 19:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Would yas give me a quick summary of what's the dispute? GoodDay (talk) 19:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I can. I'm actually a bit perplexed as to what Prince's issue is myself. --G2bambino (talk) 19:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

(indent)Basically the issue is this: G2 doesn't understand, despite having said so himself in the past to me, that different computers will render webpages differently. Accordingly, editing image placement so that it looks 'correct' on his computer is therefore no guarantee that the display will look good anywhere else. Which is why I moved images at the beginning of subs to be right-aligned; this ensures the image will display in the relevant section, no matter how else the computer renders the page. G2's approach is to shuffle images around until they look 'right' on his computer, and too bad for how anyone else sees it. His assertion that he is 'perplexed' is a baldfaced lie, as the issue has been explained to him repeatedly. Prince of Canada 19:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I checked the recent 'edit history' of this article, to understand the dispute. OK, Prince's edit put Elizabeth Canadian image on the left side of the content, G2's puts it on the right side. Personally, I've no problem with the image being on the 'right or left side' of the content. Why? because it doesn't disrupt the content. Anyways, that's just my opinon. GoodDay (talk) 20:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

You've got them backwards, but close enough. The issue is that G2 refuses to comprehend how formatting works, and refuses to follow what he himself said to me. He keeps ignoring that. I couldn't even begin to imagine why. Prince of Canada 20:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, there's nothing to say that an image can't be left-aligned, so long as it doesn't immediately follow the subsection-level headings. Following this guideline does not produce any disruption to the article, and it will appear more-or-less the same on yours as it does mine. All we're discussing here is the difference between this:

Example 1

Morbi dictum. Vestibulum adipiscing pulvinar quam. In aliquam rhoncus sem. In mi erat, sodales eget, pretium interdum, malesuada ac, augue. Aliquam sollicitudin, massa ut vestibulum posuere, massa arcu elementum purus, eget vehicula lorem metus vel libero. Sed in dui id lectus commodo elementum. Etiam rhoncus tortor. Proin a lorem. Ut nec velit. Quisque varius. Proin nonummy justo dictum sapien tincidunt iaculis. Duis lobortis pellentesque risus. Aenean ut tortor imperdiet dolor scelerisque bibendum. Fusce metus nibh, adipiscing id, ullamcorper at, consequat a, nulla.

Phasellus orci. Etiam tempor elit auctor magna. Nullam nibh velit, vestibulum ut, eleifend non, pulvinar eget, enim. Class aptent taciti sociosqu ad litora torquent per conubia nostra, per inceptos hymenaeos. Integer velit mauris, convallis a, congue sed, placerat id, odio. Etiam venenatis tortor sed lectus. Nulla non orci. In egestas porttitor quam. Duis nec diam eget nibh mattis tempus. Curabitur accumsan pede id odio. Nunc vitae libero. Aenean condimentum diam et turpis. Vestibulum non risus. Ut consectetuer gravida elit. Aenean est nunc, varius sed, aliquam eu, feugiat sit amet, metus. Sed venenatis odio id eros.

Phasellus placerat purus vel mi. In hac habitasse platea dictumst. Donec aliquam porta odio. Ut facilisis. Donec ornare ipsum ut massa. In tellus tellus, imperdiet ac, accumsan at, aliquam vitae, velit.

And this:

Example 2

The latter is correct, while the former is not. PoC will accept neither. --G2bambino (talk) 20:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. The latter is only technically correct, as the results are virtually identical. And you are still ignoring the fact that you yourself said that pages display differently on different computers, and indeed reverted my edits! Pictures should, this is basic logic and common sense, go in the section to which they are most related. Formatting so that it does so on your screen doesn't work, as you yourself said. Formatting so that it will do so on everyone's screens does work. Is that clear enough yet? Prince of Canada 20:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Wrong according to whom? If its technically correct then there isn't a damn thing wrong with it. Does the image in the second example above appear expanded in the middle of the right hand side of the page with the text dispersed all over the place on your screen, or something? That must be the case, lest you enjoy going on and on and on about nothing for the attention. --G2bambino (talk) 20:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Well that's more abuse, excellent, well done. Answer me one question. Just one. What is it that you do not comprehend about "And you are still ignoring the fact that you yourself said that pages display differently on different computers, and indeed reverted my edits! Pictures should, this is basic logic and common sense, go in the section to which they are most related. Formatting so that it does so on your screen doesn't work, as you yourself said. Formatting so that it will do so on everyone's screens does work. " ? Prince of Canada 20:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The pictures do go in the sections to which they're most related, in the space that's most important, and as per instructions in the Manual of Style. Unless you can prove otherwise, and so far you haven't. --G2bambino (talk) 20:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

On your computer they do. They categorically will not render that way on all computers, due to the location of the code. What part of this are you not understanding? "Formatting so that it does so on your screen doesn't work, as you yourself said. Formatting so that it will do so on everyone's screens does work." ??? Prince of Canada 20:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

You were asked to prove otherwise to my claim above. Can you or can you not? --G2bambino (talk) 20:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

That is just proof that you really don't understand how formatting works. If you did, well, frankly we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Did you or did you not say yourself, quote:

But, you do realise that it doesn't look the same on every computer, right? It all depends on the size of your screen. --G2bambino (talk) 03:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Has the way computers worked changed in the last 60-odd days? Prince of Canada 21:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Questions

Oh dear. Perhaps, in order to get the relevant information out of you, we'll have to slow this down and take it one step at a time. Please answer this question: In the above example 2, does the image appear in the relevant section? A simple yes or no, at this point, will suffice. --G2bambino (talk) 21:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll answer your question when you answer mine. So that'll be half past never, I suspect. Prince of Canada 21:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Heh.. okay, then. The answer to your question is: no. Your turn now. --G2bambino (talk) 21:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Answered below. So. Given that how computers function has not changed since you made that statement, why precisely should edits you make that are idiosyncratic to your computer be kept? Especially over edits that aim for functionality across all computers? Prince of Canada 21:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

To answer that question, the point of edits being ideosyncratic to my computer would first have to be verified, which is exactly what I'm trying to do through my line of questioning. You offered some kind of answer below; so, I will try and adjust the example to suit your concerns.

Example 3

Now: In the above example 3, does the image appear in the relevant section? A simple yes or no, at this point, should suffice. --G2bambino (talk) 21:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

It does, yes. Which is irrelevant, because 1) again it is an example constrained within a box, and 2) it cannot be guaranteed that it always will. See your edits & screenshots from EIIR for an example. Or is that different somehow? Prince of Canada 21:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Irrelevant?? The whole point of this entire argument is your claim that it somehow screws up the article's layout, yet, you haven't a shred of evidence that it does! Your whole position is based on nothing but speculation! Come back when there's an actual problem we can look at, not "it might happen somewhere somehow" assumptions. --G2bambino (talk) 21:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you not read? The box example is irrelevant because it doesn't actually show the actual conditions on the page. This, however, does.

Observe how the image does not sit properly in one section or the other, and how it mucks with the formatting below, despite your apparent intention to have it show up in the section below. Notice also how my formatting guarantees that it shows up in the correct section. Notice also how you continue to ignore that. Prince of Canada 22:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks perfectly fine to me; fits Manual of Style too. But apparantly doesn't work with WP accessability guidelines. So, the argument is over, regardless. --G2bambino (talk) 22:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

GoodDay's suggestion

I honestly have no problem with either. However, I've a novel idea - I recommend G2's images be applied to Royal Biography articles & PoC's be applied to Royal non-Biography articles (or visa-versa; which you both agree on). GoodDay (talk) 20:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

That, I'm afraid, won't resolve anything. And, it actually isn't necessary. There's nothing wrong with the corrections I made to my earlier mistakes. --G2bambino (talk) 20:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

No. It's not about 'my images' or 'his images', it's about ensuring that display is as consistent as is reasonably possible (which my formatting does), it's about ensuring that formatting for one specific computer (which is what G2's formatting does) isn't allowed to override basic considerations of function, it's about ensuring that images render in the sections to which they are related every single time (which my formatting does), it's about not having images render in the right places depending on screen resolution and browser width (which is what G2's formatting does), and finally, it's about making G2 understand that if he is going to inform someone that all computers display differently, the same goes for him. Prince of Canada 20:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

It's the best solution I could cook up. GoodDay (talk) 20:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

it won't resolve anything because it does not address the udnerlying issue: G2's lack of comprehension of statements he himself has made. Prince of Canada 20:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

You both seem headed towards disaster, gentlemen. I recommend you both reconsider my sololution. PS- at least you both agree on disliking it. GoodDay (talk) 20:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Would shrinking the Images sizes help? GoodDay (talk) 20:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

No, because that still fails to address the basic concern, which is that G2 is not understanding how formatting works. Despite having said, himself, that pages will render differently on different computers. He refuses to address that. Prince of Canada 20:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Cool. GoodDay (talk) 20:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with G2 on the "commonsense" issue. If the image and text render in the way G2 shows in his second example, the relationship between the image and the section below it is clear. As to the rendering issue, is it rendering incorrectly for Prince? Regardless, what does Prince believe it would look like incorrectly rendered? These questions may be answered on either or both of your talk pages, but I will not look to the user talk pages for answers because it is unfair to expect users to look to such discussions after bringing the discussion here.

Finally, can we stop with the ad hominem stuff? It makes it very difficult to make sense of this when a third party's reasonable questions are answered with "the problem is so-and-so doesn't unstand (or refuses to understand) X". Frankly, many of us do not understand the HTML coding and rendering at issue here. At the same time, it is unfair to expect us to simply defer to what someone, even someone we trust, says about formatting. Being specific about what problems might result is important for us to understand and resolve the issue. -Rrius (talk) 21:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

is it rendering incorrectly for Prince? That is the key question that Prince will not answer. I can't yet tell if it does or doesn't, or if he merely thinks I've misread the MoS. Very confusing. --G2bambino (talk) 21:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Saying he doesn't understand isn't an ad hominem, it is simple fact. He does not understand, or chooses to pretend not to understand, something he himself has said. He also continues to refuse to address that.

Moving on. G2's examples above are not illustrative of the problem, which is why I am not bothering to answer the question as they are self-contained boxes (which thus constrains how they render, ensuring that they will show up just about the same everywhere) and not an actual page with content above and below. To put it really simply, code renders line by line, like so:

Text

Header

Image

Text

etc.

Now, here's G2's version

Text

Image

Header

Text

Given that the image will render before the header, the header can now wrap the image, thus being 'pushed over'. The same goes for the text. And depending on the size of the image, the amount of text, etc, this can split the text away from the header--directly prohibited by MOS. So now the image may or may not, depending on screen size, resolution, and browser width, show up in the section for which it is intended.

Doing it the first way guarantees that no matter what your screen size, resolution, or browser width the image will render in the correct section. It's that simple. Prince of Canada 21:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Depending on the size of the image, the amount of text, etc, this can split the text away from the header. Where is the evidence of that? --G2bambino (talk) 21:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Stop wikilawyering and address questions I have asked you. Until you can prove that you understand how formatting works, and until you can explain why cosmetic edits idiosyncratic to your computer should stand while you reverted ones that I made (and you've said already that this is vengeance; it's not, don't bother making the accusation again. I learned from the formatting mistake on July 4), there is absolutely no point in engaging you any further on this topic. Prince of Canada 21:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

So, then, you have no evidence that "Depending on the size of the image, the amount of text, etc, this can split the text away from the header." Supporting evidence is what you need to give your claims validity. It would help everyone understand just what is this problem you claim exists. --G2bambino (talk) 21:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I have already explained, repeatedly. Your failure to comprehend is no longer my problem. I will happily engage with any other users who actually wish to engage in discussion. Prince of Canada 21:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Expanation isn't evidence. Thus, we can all take it from your silence in the face of repeated requests for evidence that you actually have none. That should bring this discussion to a swift (and long overdue) close. --G2bambino (talk) 21:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The easiest evidence--your screenshots of the EIIR page--have been deleted. Your silence in the face of repeated requests for answers regarding why your edits should stay while you reverted mine also shows something, but I'm pretty certain you won't like it. More to the point, whether or not it's rendering incorrectly on my system doesn't matter, because that is just as idiosyncratic as yours. Once again, and for the last time, maybe you'll get it this time: formatting by making sure it looks perfect on your screen based on tweaking where an image goes outside of the section where it actually belongs does not work due to idiosyncrasies of screen size, resolution, and browser width. You yourself have said that to me and are now conveniently ignoring it. One has to wonder why. Prince of Canada 21:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Different articles, different issues. It's okay, we get it: you've nothing. Thanks for wasting everyone's time. --G2bambino (talk) 21:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

It's the same freaking issue!!!! YOU claim that the way you format images makes things show up correctly. YOU ARE WRONG. YOU HAVE BEEN PROVEN WRONG. DEAL WITH IT. Prince of Canada 22:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Au contraire: you proved me right. Cheers! --G2bambino (talk) 22:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Accessibility says both that "the image should be inside the section it belongs to (after the header and after any link to other article), and not just before the header" and that we should "not place left-aligned images directly below second-level (===) headings, as this can disconnect the heading from the text it precedes, when read with larger fonts". If someone thinks that this is no longer a risk (or never was), with any hardware/software combination, then the arguments should probably be taken to Misplaced Pages talk:Accessibility for a possible change in the guideline; otherwise both formats seem definitely prohibited. Previous discussions on this at MOS: 1, 2, 3, 4. -- Jao (talk) 21:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Game, set, match. Ta. I'll fix the article now. Prince of Canada 22:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, whatever floats your boat, Prince. You didn't come up with the accessability guideline. You came up with... ah yes, nothing. Thanks to Jao, though, for finding something concrete; it was exactly what was needed. --G2bambino (talk) 22:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Images, again

User:PrinceOfCanada is now claiming erroneous formatting of certain images; namely here and here. As it was already established at this talk page that: Misplaced Pages:Accessibility says both that "the image should be inside the section it belongs to (after the header and after any link to other article), and not just before the header" and that we should "not place left-aligned images directly below second-level (===) headings, as this can disconnect the heading from the text it precedes, when read with larger fonts", PoC now needs to explain why the image placement he objects to is in violation of the above. --G2bambino (talk) 23:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not, wikilawyer. However, look at the screenshot I provided. Image placement--oh God, I can't believe I'm having to explain this again--the way you were doing it causes messed up formatting on some computers. Right-aligning the image does not. Look at the freaking screenshot. It's not hard. Here, I'll put it here again:

Do you see where the formatting is messed up? Yes, that is idiosyncratic to my computer and my roommate's (again, two browsers, two screen resolutions, and tested in one browser on my roommate's computer), but the move guarantees it will not happen anywhere. Prince of Canada 23:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly as I see it (well, saw; that's an old example). Perfectly correct. Unless you have some guideline that says the headers and text should not wrap around images? --G2bambino (talk) 00:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

It looks awful and it violates large parts of the point of not left-aligning under headers, namely, messing up the overall layout of the whole page. Stop wikilawyering. You claim that WP:Civil doesn't apply to you, so why exactly should the solely-to-the-letter ideas of another Wiki policy apply? Make up your mind. Prince of Canada 00:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks awful is your POV, so let's stick to what we have before us in black and white: the guideline says that we should "not place left-aligned images directly below second-level (===) headings, as this can disconnect the heading from the text it precedes, when read with larger fonts." I did not place the left-aligned images directly below the second level headings. "The point" of the guideline is not subject to your personal interpretations; it is an instruction, which I have followed to the letter. Unless there is some other detail that says a left-aligned image cannot be placed following the first paragraph below a second level heading, then there's nowhere you can go with this. --G2bambino (talk) 00:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

At what point, precisely--show me a diff!--did I say you placed the left-aligned image below a 2H? Come on, I know you can show me. Oh.. you can't. That's because I never said it. What I did say is that it looks awful, and messes up the formatting below. There is no doubt about the second point, and you can argue the first as much as you like; I don't care. Fact is, get consensus to change it back if you really must. I am sick of your abuse. Prince of Canada 00:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't matter whether you said that or not; what you did claim was "erroneous formatting." You've so far been unable, yet again, to point out my error, which I'm perfectly willing to accept if the accusation could be supported. If, however, I did not make an error (as in, violating any formatting guidelines), then this all comes down, again, to "it looks awful," which is simply your POV. I guess you have a penchant for having the headers always clinging to the left-hand margin, or something. But, there isn't a requirement that they do so, is there? I've never seen one, and plenty of articles on Misplaced Pages don't demonstrate any need; regard the featured articles Australian Green Tree Frog, Henry Moore, Nauru, and King Vulture. That's just a tiny, tiny sample; so, if there's some infraction, then you've a lot of work ahead of you. --G2bambino (talk) 00:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

"(as in, violating any formatting guidelines)" ← Show me the diff where I said that, please. Your strawmen are showing. Like I said, get consensus and change it back if you feel so very strongly about it. I give up. As you have done in every single debate I have seen you take part in, you just bully and bully and ignore what people say and twist their words until they give up, and you get to do whatever you want. So fine. You win again. I give up, and I am considering leaving the entire project, solely because of you and your odious behaviour. Prince of Canada 00:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

One more time: "showing erroneous formatting". Is there some way "erroneous formatting" is not "violating formatting guidelines"? Regardless, I don't need a consensus to change it back; you disrupted the stauts quo, ergo it's you who needs to defend your edits. Your choice, of course. --G2bambino (talk) 00:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes. It's erroneous. Wrong. Bad. I never said 'violating guidelines' and you know it. but it doesn't matter. You win. You've chased me away. Thank you for completely destroying for me something that I was really enjoying. Well done. Bye. Prince of Canada 00:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Meh. A tad dramatic, if you ask me. You made some constructive edits; but, if you don't want to have your claims scrutinised, well, then, as you wish. --G2bambino (talk) 00:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Images, again, again

What's happening here in terms of User:PrinceOfCanada disputing the placement of images is parallel to his disputes at Monarchy of Barbados; thus, the discussion at Talk:Monarchy of Barbados#Image covers both articles. --G2bambino (talk) 01:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

A MedCab case is now open here. --G2bambino (talk) 03:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

To avoid another edit war?

Wait until the MedCab has concluded, please. GoodDay (talk) 21:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Avoiding another edit war is easy: abide by what you have already agreed to! Prince of Canada 21:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Nothing is agreed to, until the MedCab has concluded. GoodDay (talk) 21:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Read the text. G2 has, indeed, agreed to many things. Prince of Canada 21:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Many things is not everything. Regardless, this page will likely be edited again once MedCab is complete. --G2bambino (talk) 22:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The only changes I made were with regards to the items with which you had already agreed. To wit:

Left aligned images should not be used at the start of a section
Left and right aligned images directly opposite each other tend to distract the reader and should be avoided (staggered left/right images that overlap are OK)
Unless there is a risk that an infobox will encroach in the right column, the first image should be placed at the head of the section, right aligned.

Unless you're saying you didn't agree to those? Prince of Canada 22:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Not completely, no. But, that's still not the point, and you know it. It doesn't matter anyway; this discussion should never have had to have taken place. --G2bambino (talk) 22:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes or no: you did or did not agree to those things? Prince of Canada 22:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Have fun, folks. GoodDay (talk) 21:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal - Outcome

As many regulars will be aware, the ongoing disputes (on this page and others connected to the Commonwealth Royal Family) surounding image placement have been the subject of a Mediation Cabal request.

I regret that the process has not, to date, resulted in an outcome that both parties feel able to unambiguously endorse.

By any binary pass/fail judgement, we have failed.

However, the journey that we have travelled has not been without achievements.

Both parties to the mediation have worked within a fairly draconian set of rules that I imposed at the start (with one or two exceptions, but we are none of us perfect) to thrash out the issues, and hone down the areas of disagreement considerably. Given that the days prior to the mediation looked more like the start of all-out warfare than any attempt to reach agreement, it has taken a massive leap of faith all round for the parties to get this far, and they are both to be commended for their commitment to the process.

I would express hope here that they both take on board how much more they were able to achieve through discourse than through battles, and endeavour to continue their future interactions in the same vein, even without having a referee to remind them.

The fact that both have taken steps to remove content from their user space that could be considered as unpleasant towards the other, and have offered apologies to each other is, in my view, evidence that they both wish to contribute constructively to Misplaced Pages, and that ultimately they will find a way of accomodating each other.

The remaining issue

Whilst there are several areas that G2 and PoC continue to have different views on, there remains but a single area where we have not achieved some form of accomodation, the question of left aligned images overlapping into the next section.

It is clear to me that, at the root of the differences here, is the fact that G2 and PoC each use display resolutions that are outside the range of resolutions used by most editors and readers. This has the effect of making it difficult for each to visualise why the other has problems with their prefered layout.

G2 sees images spanning sections as a minor thing, because it merely displaces the next section header to the right a little, but on a lower resolution screen, this displacement may be about a third of the screen.

PoC sees a bit of white space as a minor thing, but on higher resolution screens, it could result in more white space than text.

We have looked at Policies and Guidelines, which are rather vague on who may be right. G2 rightly points out that WP:PIC depracates introducing white space as a solution to image stack, but PoC equally correctly points out that it does so in a context that implies that if image stack exists, it is something that should be done if there is no other solution available.

I have made suggestions which may well have the effect of making the point moot, by increasing the space used by text without introducing white space. None of this is guaranteed to work, but it may reduce the number of cases where there is an issue.

In the circumstances, I have taken the principles and guidelines that the parties were unable to agree upon, modified them slightly to take account of subsequent discussions, and reproduced them below.

Principles

Left aligned images should not be used immediately at the start of a section.
Left and right aligned images directly opposite each other tend to distract the reader and should be avoided (staggered left/right images that overlap are OK).
Image stacking that overlaps into the following section on any brower (not just the browser used by the editor) is to be avoided at all costs.
The gallery feature is available where there are many images that should be included.
White space is unwelcome, and we should avoid it if possible (but not at the expense of allowing an image stack to invade the next section).

Guidelines

In these guidelines, the likelihood of an event should be taken by reference to a 1024x768 screen resolution.

Any decorative images should be culled.
Where there is scope to do so, text should be expanded to increase the scope to add images.
Where there is scope to do so, additional paragraph breaks can be inserted to both expand the text size without introducing white space, and bring forward the first opportunity for a left-aligned image. This measure should not involve the introduction of arbitrary paragraph breaks.
Unless there is a risk that an infobox will encroach in the right column, the first image should be placed at the head of the section, right aligned.
The next image (or first image if the infobox encroaches) should be placed at the start of the second paragraph in a section, left aligned.
Subsequent images should be placed alternately left and right (infobox permitting). If an infobox is likely to encroach into a section, we should only add left aligned images every other paragraph until the text will have passed the foot of the infobox.
Where this is still likely to cause image stacking into the next section, images should be prioritised, and the lower priority images placed in a gallery at the foot of the section.
Other than cases where the infobox is likely to go right through a section, sections where there is a risk of image stack may be closed with {{clear}} to ensure that even on odd broswers we don't get image stack.
Where an infobox is likely to go right through a section, and we are using only left-aligned images, we should use {{clearleft}} rather than {{clear}}.
Misplaced Pages is a collaborative project, which relies of editors improving each others work. As such, it is always open to editors to attempt to improve the work of others. However, such changes should not have the effect of increasing white space or causing images to span sections.
Where the two parties are unable to agree on the layout of a particular section, they should both disengage, and invite other editors to decide.
There may be cases where all parties agree that, in a particular instance, image overlap is not a problem. Where this is the case, WP:IAR says that we should go with consensus!

Where now?

Mediation exists to try and bring two parties to a mutual agreement. It does not seek to (and is not able to) impose a solution.

If the parties wish, they can take this further along the dispute resolution process. I would urge them to consider whether they wish to spend time bogged down in process, or if they would rather get on with improving Misplaced Pages.

As such, I would suggest;

Others review the proposed guidelines, and work with the parties to see if there are in fact ways in which we can bring them together.
Both accept that there is a shortage of guidance on the issue in WP:MOS, and engage at WT:MOS to seek consensus to expand the guidelines.

At this point, I will be closing the MEDCAB, as I don't believe that we can go further with just the three of us. Thank you to both G2 and PoC for putting up with me as mediator, and I wish you all the very best of luck in reaching an amicable solution here.

If I can help further, please shout up. I will, however be unavailable from Wednesday until October 12th. Sorry, but I'm getting married, and the future Mrs Mayall says "no internet on Honeymoon"

Mayalld (talk) 09:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Images (x3)

PoC, you are not adhering what we agreed on at Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-09-15 Monarchy of Canada. Let's review them again:

Left aligned images should not be used immediately at the start of a section.
Left and right aligned images directly opposite each other tend to distract the reader and should be avoided (staggered left/right images that overlap are OK)
Image stacking that overlaps into the following section on any brower (not just the browser used by the editor) is to be avoided at all costs.
The gallery feature is available where there are many images that should be included.
White space is unwelcome, and we should avoid it if possible (but not at the expense of allowing an image stack to invade the next section).
Any decorative images should be culled.
Where there is scope to do so, text should be expanded to increase the scope to add images.
Where there is scope to do so, additional paragraph breaks can be inserted to both expand the text size without introducing white space, and bring forward the first opportunity for a left-aligned image.
~~Unless there is a risk that an infobox will encroach in the right column, the first image should be placed at the head of the section, right aligned.~~
The next image (or first image if the infobox encroaches) should be placed at the start of the second paragraph in a section, left aligned. Subsequent images should be placed alternately left and right (infobox permitting)."

I have, per 3, removed all instances of stacked images, and, per 2, removed any instances of left- and right-aligned images directly opposite each other. This also works per 6.

Image:Charles, Prince of Wales.jpg: As you say the infobox does not touch on this image if it is right-aligned, then, per 9, it can remain right-aligned, and at the stard of the first paragraph of the section.
Image:Queen of canada wob.jpg: Per 10, this image should be left-aligned, and, per 1 and 10, at the start of the second paragraph of the section.
Image:Ouellet approaches to sign the Constitution.jpg: Per 10, this image should be right-aligned, and, per 9, at the start of the first paragraph of the section.
Image:Canadian Passport Cover.jpg: As this image is the only one in a single paragraph section, it cannot be placed left-aligned, as it should be in the alternating left-right pattern. I thus think that this image should break the old left-right pattern and start a new one afresh, right-aligned, and, per 9, at the start of the first paragraph of the section.
Image:EIIR-Canadian Parliament.jpg: Per 10, this image should be left-aligned, and, per 1 and 10, at the start of the second paragraph of the section.
Image:May23 14-QE-Alb.jpg: Per 10, this image should be right-aligned, and, per 9, at the start of the first paragraph of the section.
Image:Ottawa-1939.jpg: Per 10, this image should be left-aligned, and, per 1 and 10, at the start of the second paragraph of the section.
Image:Royal Standard of Canada.svg: Per 10, this image should be right-aligned, and, per 9, at the start of the first paragraph of the section.
Image:Francis1-1.jpg: Per 10, this image should be left-aligned, and, per 1 and 10, at the start of the second paragraph of the section.
Image:Roy-fam-canada.jpg: Per 10, this image should be right-aligned, and, per 9, at the start of the first paragraph of the section.
Image:Roy-fam-2007.jpg: Per 10, this image should be left-aligned, and, per 1 and 10, at the start of the second paragraph of the section.
Image:Rideau Hall04.jpg: Per 10, this image should be right-aligned, and, per 9, at the start of the first paragraph of the section.
Image:Élisabeth II Chef des armées canadiennes.jpg: Per 10, this image should be left-aligned, and, per 1 and 10, at the start of the second paragraph of the section (I was incorrect in my earlier placement of this image).
Image:Royal Ontario Museum edit3.jpg: Per 10, this image should be right-aligned, and, per 9, at the start of the first paragraph of the section. --G2bambino (talk) 17:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:EIIR-Canadian Parliament.jpg: Per 10, this image should be left-aligned, and, per 1 and 10, at the start of the second paragraph of the section.

No, per 9 it should be at the beginning of the section, right-aligned, as no infobox can encroach. I'm on 1024x768 resolution, which is what layout should be optomized for.

Image:Ottawa-1939.jpg: Per 10, this image should be left-aligned, and, per 1 and 10, at the start of the second paragraph of the section.

As above, but since there is absolutely no chance of it spanning into the next section, I'm willing to leave it.

Image:Roy-fam-2007.jpg: Per 10, this image should be left-aligned, and, per 1 and 10, at the start of the second paragraph of the section.

As above. Prince of Canada 18:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Images spanning into following sections is not of import at this moment; that is a matter yet to be decided on. What seems to be the problem here is the interpretation of "first image"; I read it as the first image in the article, whereas it seems you are reading it as the first image in any given section. Your take, however, doesn't work with the left-right alternation pattern of 10, and, in fact, will cause image stacking rather than eliminating it as per 3. It would also mean that you should object to the placement of more than just the three images you drew out above; as each section only has one image, your version of things would see every image right-aligned. --G2bambino (talk) 18:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

"Unless there is a risk that an infobox will encroach in the right column, the first image should be placed at the head of the section, right aligned." seems pretty unambiguous; 'of the section' implies that the only thing being discussed is sections, not the entire article. I'd remind you that MOS says the same thing. Prince of Canada 18:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

It is unambiguous if you don't include the rest of the agreed upon guidelines. First, though, could you please remind me where MoS says that the first image in a section cannot be left-aligned as long as it comes at least at the start of the second paragraph? --G2bambino (talk) 18:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Here. Accessibility, not MOS, sorry. Prince of Canada 18:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't see where it says the first image in a section cannot be left-aligned as long as it comes at least at the start of the second paragraph. --G2bambino (talk) 18:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

<!-- CORRECT CODE -->
== Foo bars ==
{{main|Foo bar}}
{{cleanup-section}}
]
A '''foo bar''' ...

Is the section structure prescribed by MOS. Note that the image comes before the text. Prince of Canada 18:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

That is a direction made by WP:ACCESS. However, it does not say that the first image in a section cannot be left-aligned as long as it comes at least at the start of the second paragraph. I might venture to say that you are reading the WP:ACCESS example too literally; if one were to follow it as you say should be done, all sections of Misplaced Pages could only have one image, which must be right-aligned, and placed between the header and the textual body of the section. As WP:MOS guides us on how to place left-aligned images as the first image in a section, this interpretation, however, cannot be the case. --G2bambino (talk) 19:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

It does, however, very clearly show that the first image in a section should be at the beginning of the section. Which Mayalld also said. Which is listed above; "Unless there is a risk that an infobox will encroach in the right column, the first image should be placed at the head of the section, right aligned." Can we drop this now, or do we need another MedCab? Prince of Canada 19:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

No, this will not simply be dropped. The WP:ACCESS example does not say that the first image in a section cannot be a left-aligned one as long as it comes at least at the start of the second paragraph; it merely illustrates how an image that comes at the head of a section should be placed. Further, both WP:MOS and WP:ACCESS say: "Do not place left-aligned images directly below subsection-level (=== or greater) headings, as this can disconnect the heading from the text it precedes." WP:ACCESS says to move the image "to another relevant location," which WP:MOS outlines as "shifting left-aligned images down a paragraph or two." That means that left-aligned images can be the first to follow the header, as long as they are placed as guided. --G2bambino (talk) 19:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

"Unless there is a risk that an infobox will encroach in the right column, the first image should be placed at the head of the section, right aligned." You implicitly have agreed to this. Your reason for not doing so now is...? Prince of Canada 19:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, looking at the MedCab page: no, I did not agree to that. I said: "Unclear: does 'first image' mean the first in the article, or first in any section?" That question was never answered. It seems, then, that I jumped the gun today, in my haste for a resolution. It gives me no pleasure to say that it seems we still have more than one point to disagree on. --G2bambino (talk) 19:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

It is abundantly clear what that particular statement means. Given the use of "placed at the head of the section", as well as "additional paragraph breaks can be inserted to both expand the text size without introducing white space, and bring forward the first opportunity for a left-aligned image" and most especially "The next image (or first image if the infobox encroaches) should be placed at the start of the second paragraph in a section, left aligned" all very, very clearly explain the meaning of "Unless there is a risk that an infobox will encroach in the right column, the first image should be placed at the head of the section, right aligned." It is obvious from reading the list that Mayalld posted above (as opposed to your reordering) that there is a progression from point 1 to 2, and so on to the final point, listed from simplest and most desirable option all the way to how to resolve an impasse should the preceding steps not work. Prince of Canada 19:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see you have now crossed that section out. So, another MedCab, then? Prince of Canada 19:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The lack of clarity lies in a single word: the section is not the same as a section. I read point 4 of Mayalld's list as being specific about which section it refers to; namely, that in which the first image of an article sits. If he had meant the suggestion to apply more generally, it would have been written as: Unless there is a risk that an infobox will encroach in the right column, the first image should be placed at the head of a section, right aligned. Because there is such a fine, but important, difference between the and a is why I said the statement was unclear. I have subsequently crossed it out here as I was obviously mistaken in thinking it was one of the points we agreed on. --G2bambino (talk) 20:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

And you're ignoring that point in the context of the other points I raised above because why? You said "It is unambiguous if you don't include the rest of the agreed upon guidelines." Well.. I included the rest of the guidelines, which only serves to clarify even further how unambiguous the statement is. So your objection is...? Prince of Canada 20:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't read the other points as contradicting my reading of #4 of Mayalld's list. --G2bambino (talk) 20:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay.. so when you said "It is unambiguous if you don't include the rest of the agreed upon guidelines," and I responded with the other guidelines, you say you don't agree with the other guidelines in that context. So what you actually meant was, "It's ambiguous, period"? Prince of Canada 20:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I was too succinct. The full intended meaning behind that statement was that the only way your interpretation of Mayalld's #4 could possibly be unambiguous was if the other agreed upon guidelines were ignored (and your original post didn't make any mention of them). That was, though, formulated in a mind that had forgotten its perception of a possible weakness in #4, and believed it to be a sound point. However, that weakness has since made itself evident again. --G2bambino (talk) 21:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Except, um, no? Bringing in the context of the other guidelines further proves the complete absence of ambiguity in the statement, even though the statement is unambiguous in itself. Prince of Canada 21:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, only by your reading of it. --G2bambino (talk) 21:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

...Riiiiiiiiiiight. Well, I've asked Mayalld to drop by and clarify before his honeymoon. Prince of Canada 21:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, it is right. Please don't be sarcastic, as though what I'm saying is the ranting of a loopy moron. --G2bambino (talk) 21:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Sarcastic, yes. Other than that, kindly do not put words in my mouth or ascribe motivations to me that are not true. Ok? Good. Prince of Canada 21:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Categories:

Revision as of 21:48, 22 September 2008 editG2bambino (talk \| contribs)19,847 edits →Images (x3)← Previous edit		Revision as of 21:53, 22 September 2008 edit undoRoux (talk \| contribs)23,636 edits →Images (x3): rNext edit →
Line 343:		Line 343:
	:::::...Riiiiiiiiiiight. Well, I've asked ] to drop by and clarify before his honeymoon. ]<sup>] \| ]</sup> 21:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)		:::::...Riiiiiiiiiiight. Well, I've asked ] to drop by and clarify before his honeymoon. ]<sup>] \| ]</sup> 21:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
	::::::Indeed, it is right. Please don't be sarcastic, as though what I'm saying is the ranting of a loopy moron. --] (]) 21:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)		::::::Indeed, it is right. Please don't be sarcastic, as though what I'm saying is the ranting of a loopy moron. --] (]) 21:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
			:::::::Sarcastic, yes. Other than that, kindly do not put words in my mouth or ascribe motivations to me that are not true. Ok? Good. ]<sup>] \| ]</sup> 21:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)