Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
:You were no less entitled to make those changes than any other editor. Unfortunately, you've been reverted. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 16:47, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
:You were no less entitled to make those changes than any other editor. Unfortunately, you've been reverted. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 16:47, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
::Very true, you have been reverted. I am sorry Bede, but you are being used as a stooge by Andy Mabbitt who is just trolling for trouble as usual. All major changed to a GA should be discussed on the talk page with the primary authors who have to maintain the page. As Mabbitt and his sidekick Moxy well know. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 17:21, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
::Very true, you have been reverted. I am sorry Bede, but you are being used as a stooge by Andy Mabbitt who is just trolling for trouble as usual. All major changed to a GA should be discussed on the talk page with the primary authors who have to maintain the page. As Mabbitt and his sidekick Moxy well know. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 17:21, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
::::Your behavior is simply appealing and I see you dont have the maturity level to talk with others in a proper manner. You make wild accusations and insult people at every turn. Your behavior needs to be amended ASAP - you look like a fool.] (]) 01:08, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
This page is within the scope of the Misplaced Pages Help Project, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's help documentation for readers and contributors. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. To browse help related resources see the Help Menu or Help Directory. Or ask for help on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you there.Misplaced Pages HelpWikipedia:Help ProjectTemplate:Misplaced Pages Help ProjectHelp
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.
Location
I really think the rule concerning text allegedly "sandwiched" between 2 images should be reviewed, and maybe eliminated altogether. My opinion on that, which I just posted elsewhere after an image I had posted facing a damn infobox was relocated:
"avoid sandwiching text between two images that face each other"
One has to use common sense. Articles such as this one (Bishopric of Constance) often have an infobox that occupies more space lengthwise than the text of the article itself (not that easy to find enough stuff to write a 2000-word article on the Prince-Bishopric of Constance in English). Which means that to respect the "anti-sandwiching" rule, any maps or photographs either have to be incorporated to the Infobox (max. 1) or relegated at the bottom of the article, and out of view. Yet, in this kind of narrow-focused historical articles, maps and photographs are informative and valuable and usually more so than those (often misleading) dumb infoboxes.
What's more, the "Infobox former country" type of infobox such as the one in this article is quite narrow and the text certainly didn't look "sandwiched" before someone summarily relocated my images to the bottom of the article.
Since we are dealing with "sandwiching":
The major article "European Union" (which has a "this is good article" icon) starts (below the lead) with a whole paragraph "sandwiched" between a very wide Infobox and a picture. Nobody seems to be particularly offended.
The article "Los Angeles" has at least 3 instances of text sandwiched between 2 pictures. Doesn't look "sandwiched" to me!
Same with the Misplaced Pages articles on Milan, Montreal, Cairo, Belgrade, Mexican Revolution, Seven Years War, etc. etc. etc.
There are myriad Wiki articles with paragraphs fully or partially "sandwiched" between 2 photographs or an infobox and a photograph. And you know what? it doesn't look "sandwiched" and readers don't seem particularly offended. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lubiesque (talk • contribs) 22:55, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
What we're really trying to avoid is this:
Section title
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Aliquam vitae mattis urna. Maecenas elementum vestibulum sodales. Sed id quam nisl, non imperdiet tortor. Donec lobortis condimentum aliquet. Ut ultricies, nisi in venenatis hendrerit, leo ligula tempor tellus, sed feugiat lectus nibh vel turpis. Phasellus molestie convallis turpis, non aliquam nisl bibendum ac. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus. Proin nec commodo lorem. Vivamus risus nulla, volutpat nec accumsan quis, tempus a elit. Vestibulum lobortis nunc vitae enim viverra sit amet elementum sapien interdum. Aliquam erat volutpat.
It looks silly and it's hard for the reader's eye to find the first word (compared to how quickly the reader finds the first word if it's in the expected place). WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:30, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
The above example is absurd. Zillions of articles have paragraphs entirely or partially "sandwiched" between two images or an image and an infobox and the result is visually satisfactory, even pleasing.
For example, look at articles of majors cities of the world such as Hamburg, Chicago, Saint Petersburg, etc. etc. -- those are usually carefully presented articles -- yet, you will find that the majority have one or several cases of images facing each others.
So? I'll bet that if you look, you can find grammar errors in many articles, too, but we are not going to re-write the Manual of Style to say that grammar errors are common and therefore acceptable. Whenever you see a page that is not compliant with some aspect of the Manual of Style, you should feel free to fix it so that it does comply. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:35, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Notification of RFC
An editor requesting to remove foreign language images from Senkaku Islands dispute. The editor claims the images violate WP:IMAGE "Images are primarily meant to inform readers by providing visual information." because the foreign language text is unrecognizable to English-speaking readers. The images are used in the official web site of the Japanese government as evidences to its claims. Please participate in the discussion at Talk:Senkaku Islands dispute#RfC on two images. Please note that even an English language image, it may be unrecognizable because of the resolution.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 08:30, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
I've removed the following text from the Location section:"Avoid placing images on the left at the start of any section or subsection, because it makes it harder for readers to find the beginning of the text. Images on the left are best placed somewhere after the first paragraph." It was added back in July last year , apparently to make this guideline consistent with the main WP:MOS page. But the current WP:MOS makes no mention of this recommendation, which really doesn't make much sense anyway, at least for full section headers; there may or may not be a case to be made for or against left-aligned images in subsection headers. George Ponderevo (talk) 22:30, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
As the edit summary says, it is "from" the MOS, meaning that it was removed from the main MOS page because it was being placed here. Quite a lot of minor image-related stuff had accumulated in the main MOS page and was moved over here, where it actually belongs, in the fall of 2011. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:47, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Where was this discussed? And why, if what you say is true, was material removed from the main MoS page in 2011 not added to this page until the middle of last year? George Ponderevo (talk) 05:01, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
That's not really answering the question though is it. When you added this material it was not on the main MoS page despite you claiming that it was; it had been removed from there more than six months earlier. So I repeat, where was your addition discussed? George Ponderevo (talk) 14:38, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
I am also bemused. I cannot find any evidence that the text was in the Manual of Style at any point going back to 20 September 2011; perhaps I overlooked its addition and removal withint hat frame but I did check a number of revisions where I can see no mention of the requirement. WhatamIdoing, when you laid it down here but I am totally lost. I know you've suggested it cam from the MOS itself - did it come from another page not the main one? Else where? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:34, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
It's been in the MOS pages in one form or another for years. See 2009 in ACCESS, 2009 in the main MOS, and related information (more about the complaint above) as far back as 2007 in LAYOUT. This is not new information.
It's also standard practice for professional layout work. The first word is supposed to be in a predictable, easy-to-spot location. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:29, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
No, it's old misinformation that was removed from the MoS, and then some time later mysteriously resurfaces here. What the MoS actually said in the version to which you provided a link was this: "Do not place left-aligned images directly below a subsection-level heading (=== or lower), as this sometimes disconnects the heading from the text that follows it.", which is not at all what you've added here. George Ponderevo (talk) 16:53, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
You might also consider what professional sources say about this issue. Look at this article on web page formatting, for example, which says:
We can also move the lead image to the right. This allows the body copy to hold its shape better and allows for even easier scanning of the article. We can break this principle to draw attention to images and figures, of course, but for our example the image is too distracting on the left when placed early in the article.
And since I don't want to bother sorting through your contributions, would you tell me why you're so upset about this? You're sounding very much like your favorite ox is being gored because this MOS page contains standard advice about improving readability. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:43, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Upset? The only thing that upsets me is having to watch hobby-horse riders trying to ride roughshod over sensible and hard-working editors. You might like to consider what common sense has to say about this issue. George Ponderevo (talk) 01:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
I've been affected by this issue a few times. In United States v. Wong Kim Ark, for example, I had originally placed some images on the left (in order to have alternating left/right placement of images), but other editors insisted on moving them to the right because of the disputed MOS provision. I am not currently convinced that this provision is necessary; if starting a section or subsection with a left-placed image really does make it harder to read the text, I would like to see more evidence of this. — Richwales(no relation to Jimbo)16:54, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
MOS:IMAGES contains this language about forced left justification: "In most cases, images should be right justified on pages, which is the default placement. If an exception to the general rule is warranted, forcing an image to justify on the left side of a page is done by placing a parameter in the image coding ..." Regarding alternating image locations: "Multiple images in the same article can be staggered right-and-left." It doesn't say you have to stagger them right-and-left. Bede735 (talk) 14:12, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
I think Rich's example shows a well-laid out article that has relatively few images compared to the volume of text. There is one left-justified image, placed in the middle of a section rather than at the very first line.
If you have a large number of images relative to the text, e.g., at an image-spam-attracting and otherwise underdeveloped article like Bride, then you pretty much have to stagger images, or resign yourself to having a string of images that hangs down one or more screenfuls past the text. I believe that the stagger-left-and-right rule has been pushed hard at FAC in the past, with the result that some editors believed that all articles must always do this, even if they contain almost no images. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Was a consensus ever reached? I would imagine that the disputed provision – which was in place for more than a year – should be kept in the article until consensus deems otherwise. I've been citing this rule over the past year, and just now realized it was removed. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:08, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
"Avoid placing images on the left at the start of any section or subsection, because it makes it harder for readers to find the beginning of the text. Images on the left are best placed somewhere after the first paragraph."
This guidance should be restored to the article. It is consistent with the Forced left justification guidance: "In most cases, images should be right justified on pages, which is the default placement. If an exception to the general rule is warranted, forcing an image to justify on the left side of a page is done by placing ..." The guidance is flexible and allows for alternating locations if the context allows. Bede735 (talk) 23:53, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Did we come up with any evidence that left aligned images at the beginning of section are actually a problem? I think that would pretty much settle the matter.--SabreBD (talk) 00:12, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
The overall MOS guidance instructs right justification. An article was provided above that captures this basic rule of typography and design: Smashing Magazine. I await evidence that justifies this change of guidance. Bede735 (talk) 01:15, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Maybe I'm missing something but I don't see consensus for George Ponderevo's removal. Shouldn't it be place back in the guide?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:36, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
That was my point above as well. Although George started a discussion immediately after removing the text, it really should have been started before. I've reverted the changes for now on the basis that consensus regarding its removal isn't very clear. Perhaps an RfC is needed. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:01, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Apparently, George Ponderevo retired from Misplaced Pages shortly after this discussion was started, so we're not likely to hear back from the editor who brought the issue to the floor. SabreBD, you (and any other editor) are certainly welcome to continue the discussion, but if not, we can consider the case closed. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:26, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
I have been doing a bit of research on this issue, which so far has been rather inconclusive, but I have no objection to the restoration of the original wording. My reading of the consensus here matches that of Keithbob. We can always discuss it at a later date and see if consensus changes. Personally my objections are practical, rather than principled, that it is difficult to balance the "eyes to text" rule with this. This is countered to my satisfaction by the sensible interpretation taken by editors like WhatamIdoing, previously discussed on this page - that these different rules have to be reasonably balanced. For anyone interested all the evidence so far indicates that this is inherited from practice in newspapers and has a basis in fact, but it does not seem to have been tested for online reading.--SabreBD (talk) 22:49, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
I believe that "George" is simply operating under another name these days. His fourth, perhaps? He happens to be blocked this month.
I wouldn't object to softening this advice; it's advice about what's good in general, rather than what should be done in absolutely every case. There may be circumstances, such as articles whose sections rarely contain more than one paragraph, for which this might be difficult to apply in practice. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:27, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
I completely agree. It doesn't seem like it needs to be an absolute rule. I would support rephrasing the guideline so that it sounds more like a preference that has exceptions. Articles early on in development with limited content wouldn't be handicapped by the guideline, but at the same time, the advice would encourage editors to strive for better image placement as the article expands. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:13, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
The reason I came to this discussion is because I came across this article Montacute House which just passed GA with all of its sections beginning with pix on the left. There are many beautiful, high quality photos in the article but its hard to fit them within their sections without starting the section with a photo. So I sympathize with the editors but.... at the same time, it also clearly distracts from the reading of the text. Take a look and you'll see what I mean. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:41, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Since Montacute House has been mentioned and it seems no one has mentioned accessibility concerns. Montacute House is a great example of what not to do with images as outlined by our policy - images on the left - forcing big images beyond any recommendations - hiding of images - sandwiching of text ... all are a concern for accessibility as outlined at Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Accessibility. look at Montacute House on an old screen or your mobile phone and you will see why all this is a concern.Moxy (talk) 23:28, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Moxy, you are just stirring a very old pot and we all know that you have ulterior motives, I suggest that you drop this now, before you overtax yourself. Giano 20:09, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
It was not I that mentioned the article in the first place and I am free to comment on what I like. I did however inform the Montacute House talk page that the article has been mentioned here so people involved there can comment on the concerns raised. Please fell free to comment on the situation at hand if you wish. -- Moxy (talk) 20:37, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
I totally agree on the Montacute House issues, it is a classical example of what not to do. On the issue of finding a new way of phrasing, I am in favour of that as long as it doesn't get too long and difficult to interpret, so some care would need to be taken with this. Maybe the order of these is significant. The most important guidelines should probably go first. After that, "where possible" might be useful. Just a suggestion.--SabreBD (talk) 13:26, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't recall the disputed text ever being in the MoS. There used to be advice not to place images on the left directly under third-level headings, because it caused some technical problem, but that was found no longer to pertain so it was removed (writing from memory). The only issue with left-aligned images is that readers' eyes follow images, so they can distract readers from the text. However, if the aim is to draw people's attention to the image, before they read the text, then left-aligned images can work well. Placing images on the right and left, so that text is sandwiched, can also have the effect of drawing attention to the text too, depending on how it's done. For all these reasons I think placement should be left to editorial discretion, because everything depends on context. SlimVirgin22:57, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, the original advice discouraged placement directly under subsection headings, since these heading types do not use horizontal line separators. It appears that multiple editors so far agree that there will be a few exceptions (noted above in addition to the one you mentioned), and as a result, the guideline should be rephrased to reflect that. Though exceptions do exist, many left-justified images are simply placed there by mistake or for no good reason at all. Therefore, there's a good case for keeping the guideline, albeit in some modified form perhaps assigned a lower priority. --GoneIn60 (talk) 12:34, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
I adjusted the image locations and forced sizing in the Montacute House article according to the current MOS:IMAGES guidance, showing that images can be staggered left and right where appropriate without placing images on the left at the start of a section. Since I did not work on the article, please feel free to revert my edit. Bede735 (talk) 15:08, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Very true, you have been reverted. I am sorry Bede, but you are being used as a stooge by Andy Mabbitt who is just trolling for trouble as usual. All major changed to a GA should be discussed on the talk page with the primary authors who have to maintain the page. As Mabbitt and his sidekick Moxy well know. Giano 17:21, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Your behavior is simply appealing and I see you dont have the maturity level to talk with others in a proper manner. You make wild accusations and insult people at every turn. Your behavior needs to be amended ASAP - you look like a fool.Moxy (talk) 01:08, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Image review
Maybe this image is fine ... but it seemed so odd, and other aspects seemed so odd (its title and description and what is written on the image's page, and the fact that the purported owner is purportedly the person in the image), that I thought I would ask if an editor highly experienced with images might take a look. I just came across it due to its use in an article.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:09, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Strange, certainly, but it reads right. Other images confirm the subject as Tamás Erdélyi and it looks like a holiday snapshot - along with the filename which would fit. Overall although the description is meaningless in other respects I would accept it. WP:MCQ is a more appropriate venue for similar queries. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 22:57, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
