Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Flyer22 Frozen (talk | contribs) at 21:56, 4 January 2016 (→"Articles about ethnic groups or similarly large human populations should not be illustrated by a gallery of images of group members": new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Manual of Style/Images page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11Auto-archiving period: 3 months

Misplaced Pages Help Project‑class

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 Project This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Fixing images below the default size

This used to be deprecated in the MOS, and it certainly should be (sorry, can't provide a link - I'd be grateful if anyone can). I don't want to re-open the vexed issue of fixing at higher than the default 220px, which we currently deprecate, but like many people I routinely do this, at least for main images in the lead. The case against smaller-than-default images seems much simpler - is there ever a good reason for doing this, for images with a typical aspect ratio? I can't think of one, and have for years removed all examples of "120px" etc that I see, & I don't remember anyone ever complaining. There is an exception needed for images eg 10 times taller than they are wide, but I think the existing text covers that fine. However it gives the clear impression that too small images are fine with the MOS.

Proposals

• A) At the moment we say: "As a general rule, images should not be set to a larger fixed size than the 220px default (users can adjust this in their preferences). If an exception to the general rule is warranted, forcing an image size to be either larger or smaller than the 220px default is done by placing a parameter in the image coding."

I propose changing this to "As a general rule, images should not be set to a larger or smaller fixed size..." (new text in bold). Any objections?

• B) I'd also like to add something specifying that this applies to multiple images, which seem (unfortunately in my view) to be fashionable at the moment. So at the end of the list of bullet points, I'd like to add:

"* Multiple image templates should not be be over-used, and each image should appear at at least the default image size."

Please comment on these below, specifying A & B. Thanks Johnbod (talk) 21:57, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

• Fixed image sizes should be avoided in general, but there are cases where they're appropriate, such as in tables. Exceptions should be exceptional, though, and I think they are covered by the "as a general rule" wording—so, basically, I agree with what you've presented. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:24, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
• I've seen fixed images done on infobox images all the time. I agree that outside tables (which infoboxes technically are) fixing the size should be avoided. --MASEM (t) 22:43, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

  Images in infoboxes count as lead section images, which have always been permitted to be larger - up to 300px wide. As regards images in actual tables, see Rolling stock of the Bluebell Railway#Steam locomotives, where the images are 200px wide, including the upright ones - which makes some table rows excessively tall; compare List of Great Central Railway locomotives and rolling stock#Mainline steam locomotives (175px) or Rolling stock of the Kent & East Sussex Railway (heritage) (150px). --Redrose64 (talk) 22:53, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Can we get away from the usual issue of whether fixed sizes are good, bad, or downright evil, to address the question of whether this page should continue to use language that implies that images fixed small are better than images fixed large? I agree table images are another exception. Johnbod (talk) 03:23, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. I would oppose both as instruction creep, especially the multiple-image template suggestion, not because I like small images (the opposite is true), but because these decisions should be left to the people writing the page, not imposed centrally. Editors forget that the MoS is just a guideline, and go around trying to force it on articles in which they otherwise have no involvement. Every additional rule creates another weapon. This makes the MoS strongly disliked (e.g. see the recent discussions about creating a central style board), which is unfortunate because it's a very helpful document for style advice. Sarah (SV) 00:28, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

As my comment above. Johnbod (talk) 03:23, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. This discussion has caused me to discover relative sizing (|upright=) which I didn't know about before but seems preferable to absolute sizing in almost all cases. I had thought that gif animations and bitmap images smaller than the default size needed absolute sizes to allow the animation to work and prevent being resized to larger than the resolution of the image, respectively, but if that was ever true it doesn't seem to be any more. However, there doesn't seem to be a way to use |upright= within {{multiple image}}, and there are probably other cases where absolute sizing is still important, so I wouldn't want to see a blanket prohibition. On the other hand, the same reasons that larger-than-default absolute sizes are bad make smaller-than-default sizes bad as well, so expanding the recommendation about fixed sizes to include smaller-than-default ones seems harmless. If we're going to make this change, it would be simpler to say simply that "as a general rule images should not be used with fixed sizes". The part about whether the size is larger or smaller than the default is a red herring and should be left out; why is using a fixed size equal to the default any better of an idea than the other two cases?—David Eppstein (talk) 00:38, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree with Mr Epstein—the wording should be more like "As a general rule, images should not be set to a larger or smaller fixed size..." (I think that addresses SV's concerns about instruction creep as well) Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 03:45, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I have used smaller-than-default-size images on occasions, when the infobox equates or exceeds in length the text on the left. I figure that a smaller image facing that long infobox will be less offensive to the anti-sandwitching purists who believe that no images should ever face a sacrosanct infobox. The only other solution is to place the image below the infobox, and out of view --Lubiesque (talk) 12:07, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

{{Images}}

template:Images has been proposed for deletion, see Misplaced Pages:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_October_12#Template:Images -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 03:45, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Left placement - inaccurate guidance

In most cases, images should be right justified on pages, which is the default placement.

To my ears, "most cases" means well upwards of 50%, probably at least 75%. If this statement reflects community consensus, why do so many good articles (GA) use both left and right placement? Many of those that don't only have one or two images. The above statement is closely followed by:

Multiple images in the same article can be staggered right-and-left.

In other words, the guidance here is: If you think x is better, do it. If not, don't do it. This is not guidance, and the effect would be the same if you removed both statements. Clearly, the community likes the second statement more than the first, and the guidance should be modified to reflect community consensus, regardless of how we feel about the issue individually (this is not a request for opinions about left-right placement). ―Mandruss ☎ 04:49, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Mandruss, did you become aware of this matter because it is addressed on my talk page? On my talk page, I directed Hike The Monicas here to this talk page to discuss this topic. If he is reading this now, he should not continue that discussion at my talk page, especially since it got off track.

As for your "hy do so many good articles (GA) use both left and right placement?" question, many WP:Good and WP:Featured articles do not comply with each and every guideline, especially when editors go in and change the articles to be a certain way well after the article reached its WP:Good or WP:Featured status. For this case, what proof is there that "the community likes the second statement more than the first"? And why would you start this section and then state "this is not a request for opinions about the issue"? People are obviously going to weigh in on this matter here at this talk page if they want to. Flyer22 (talk) 05:02, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

It used to be the case that articles with all images on the right would be criticised at FA, & pressured to change. I'm not sure this still applies. Now screen sizes are so varied, the ideal image placement is in rather a mess. Johnbod (talk) 12:31, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• I knew of nothing about this on your talk page. Sometimes people think about the same issues independently from each other.
• Your point about changes after GA approval is valid, although there must be a ton of that going on. I guess there's no way to really know, short of polling a large number of GA reviewers.
• Maybe an RfC is needed.
• Being clear about my intent here is not an attempt to dictate what is discussed.
• Your tone, frankly, seems a bit confrontational, accusatory, and un-Wikipedian. I came in good faith with an issue that I feel is important, not to get involved in a fight. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:23, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Apparently, my tone these days naturally comes off as "a bit confrontational, accusatory, and un-Wikipedian" to certain editors; that was not my intention in this case. In my experience, though, from what I see on this site day in and out, confrontational and accusatory are very Wikipedian. Flyer22 (talk) 08:01, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

The guidance is to place images on the right, unless there is a reason to place them on the left, such as to stagger images, to avoid stacked images, or to have people face the text, and so on. DrKay (talk) 10:59, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

If that's the intended guidance, it's far from clear. Also, many editors believe that judicious use of left-right placement is more visually attractive, and they would consider that a reason. If the guidance excludes that reason, it should say so. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:13, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

It could be sharpened up. The guidance probably has articles with few images mainly in mind. In particular it might say that the lead image should normally be on the right, which is a very strong convention. Johnbod (talk) 12:31, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I believe that "most" is meant to mean "more than 50%", but not necessarily much more than 50%. For an article with a few images and a lot of text, then having three on the right and one on the left (Mandruss's example of 75%) would be reasonable. However, it's necessary to take all the facts and circumstances into mind, e.g., the presence of an abnormally long infobox.

Is there a difficult dispute going on here? This seems like something that is usually resolved by editors talking it through. And, since someone mention GAs above, then I note that compliance with this guideline is not on the Good article criteria. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Good point as to GA criteria, and I retract that argument. I was under the mistaken impression that GA represents a de facto community consensus on this issue. Sure, we can go with local consensus on this, which will be unknown to or ignored by many, and will endlessly ping-pong back and forth as the local mix of editors changes. I was hoping to avoid all that as unnecessary. Regardless, the current guidance here does not facilitate a local consensus as it can be used to support either position with pretty much equal strength. Like I said, guidance that nets out as, "Do what you think is best" is not useful guidance and only complicates matters and contributes to instruction creep. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:09, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Band timeline images

A discussion is happening at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Musicians#Create Member Section/Timeline Standards related to standards around generated timelines. The suggestions seem to violate the suggested size guidelines. It would probably be best if interested parties could comment to either support the 800 pixel width suggestions or give reasons against them. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:43, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Parenthesis

Are image captions supposed to be in parenthesis? Is this the proper caption "(c.1908)" or is this the proper caption "Tiffany circa 1908".

I'd put "Tiffany c. 1908" myself. Having it all in parentheses is odd. Johnbod (talk) 12:35, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

"Articles about ethnic groups or similarly large human populations should not be illustrated by a gallery of images of group members"

Sandstein added the following to the page: "Articles about ethnic groups or similarly large human populations should not be illustrated by a gallery of images of group members, because selecting them is normally original research, and often contentious." It was added per the WP:Consensus formed in this discussion. But that close only concerns ethnic/"race" matters, not all topics about large human populations. This is why I stated at Talk:African Americans, "I'm not sure how the WP:Consensus from that discussion will hold up, given that we still have such galleries at the Man and Woman articles, etc., which are just as subjective, but it's the WP:Consensus for now." Sandstein's wording here at the guideline is broader than the aforementioned close. Furthermore, I don't see how the ethnic/"racial" images are normally original research; in some cases they are, but they are most often based on what WP:Reliable sources state. For example, the inclusion of Mariah Carey as African American, which resulted in a big dispute at Talk:African Americans, is based on sources; this is also made clear by this RfC at Talk:Mariah Carey.

I'll alert Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style to this matter for wider input. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:56, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

• Project-Class Help pages
• NA-importance Help pages
• Misplaced Pages Help Project pages