Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
the Wikipedia Help Project  
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of the Wikipedia Help Project, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia'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.
 ???  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This page has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images:

To-do list is empty: remove {{To do}} tag or click on edit to add an item.


Location - sandwiching OK.[edit]

In 2011, the MOS was changed to add "*Avoid sandwiching text between two images that face each other, or between an image and an infobox." and "*Images containing important detail (for example, a map, diagram, or chart) may need larger sizes than usual to make them readable."

I propose removal of the current text: "However, avoid sandwiching text between two images that face each other, or between an image and infobox, navigation template, or similar."

Looking through the archives, it looks like we have rough consensus for this, with Whatamidoing opposing :

"putting the image above the hed is appropriate" per Daniel Case and(struck because OT) "Literally most of all Featured Articles have at least one image starting a section on the left." (both at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Images/Archive_4#Image placement: Reason?), more at and near Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Images/Archive_4#Location.

Most important is that this doesn't reflect our actual best work:

We have a zillion featured articles with images staggered and sandwiching text the same way. It looks great.

I intend to remove it, unless there's more than one objection soon, in which case I think an RFC should be used to more strongly determine consensus.--Elvey(tc) 20:46, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

The two comments quoted are on a different topic. Neither of the examples sandwich text between images: the images are alternated left and right, as recommended. Sandwiching has been deprecated since at least June 2006. Cramped text is more difficult to read and is unappealing visually. I think the advice should stay. DrKiernan (talk) 21:16, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
alternating is different from sandwiching. Frietjes (talk) 21:33, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
When I look at two featured articles, in the first, I see citations sandwiched between an image of Numismatist Farran Zerbe on the left and images of Lewis and Clark on the right. In other words, the entire References and bibliography section is sandwiched. When I look at the second again, I realize that it depends on window width; on my display, there is a ton of sandwiching; it's ~1920 pixels wide. If I shrink it to ~1280 pixels wide, there's a lot less sandwiching, but still 2-3 dozen lines are sandwiched. At any width over 830, the image of The Eagle Tavern forms one side of a sandwich. The first shows a ton of sandwiching at the narrower width too. And you're right - the quoted comment of Daniel Case is OT; sorry. Struck. DrKiernan: How wide is your window? --Elvey(tc) 23:17, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
My screen is clearly narrower than yours, and I think this may explain the discrepancy, not only in what we're seeing but also in our opinions. On wide screens, sandwiching is not going to be a problem because the text will not be cramped, and so there looks to be no reason for the advice not to sandwich. On smaller screens, however, the text will be broken up into far more blocks of different widths and sizes: that's when problems with readability occur. On the Eritrea article, I would say the two blocks of sandwiched text (in the Regions and Religion sections) look OK because in the first the text is a single block, so all the lines start and end on the same vertical lines, and in the second the images are the same size, so the text looks neat between them. However, the addition/rearrangement of images in the Culture section, regardless of screen width, created at least three blocks of text, starting and ending on different vertical lines. DrKiernan (talk) 08:15, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
DrKiernan: Agreed. I'm not going to open an RFC, though I would still support the change. If you can improve the formatting of Eritrea, I'd appreciate it; I think the Culture section will work much better than it does now with sandwiching that results in one block of text; it will bring the images near to the related text.--Elvey(tc) 09:58, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps some context will help. I think this edit of mine improved the Eritrea article, but it was reverted with the comment "format per mos". Did my edit introduce sandwiching? (It also moved two images above the 'hed', which Daniel Case said was appropriate in that OT quote).--Elvey(tc) 23:26, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
I would like to object. Sandwiched text does depend on screen width, but it can be very difficult to read and this guideline is here with good reason.--SabreBD (talk) 23:33, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
@Elvey: Your edit of 20:24, 12 November 2014 went against MOS because you put images at the bottom of sections. MOS:ACCESS#Images says (point 5) "Images should be inside the section they belong to ... and not ... at the end of the previous section" --Redrose64 (talk) 00:15, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Yup; there's contradictory advice out there; IIRC, User:Daniel Case is an admin. IMO, screen reader software should adapt; it's a pattern it could easily recognize. --Elvey(tc) 02:11, 20 November 2014 (UTC)


@DrKiernan:: If you can improve the formatting of Eritrea, I'd appreciate it; I think the Eritrea#Culture section will work much better than it does now with images sized and placed on both sides so that it that results in one block of text; it will bring the images near to the related text. Are you willing to, or would you support or disagree with that?--Elvey(tc) 02:11, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Since my name was invoked here and ECHO summoned me from the vasty deep: I still very much think large sections of text sandwiched between images looks awful. Show me a newspaper or magazine that does it routinely. I don't think you can. It's a major layout sin because it doesn't make things any easier for the reader. The fact that you can find GAs, or even FAs, that do this to me speaks more to the poor or uninformed quality of reviewing (especially in the former category) than it does to the desirability of allowing this amateurishness.

If you really feel a need for both images and you can't put them anywhere else, consider using {{multiple image}} to stack them and make the browser treat them as a single object. Or find a way to make a video slideshow.

Let me just qualify this a little, though, by saying that I have no objection to one, or sometimes two, lines sandwiched between text—sometimes that's unavoidable. I have certainly done it myself enough times. Daniel Case (talk) 04:43, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi! The first thing I thought to do was see if wired.com had large sections of text sandwiched between images in articles. I didn't have to go far; that's what I see on their home page. And in the second article I clicked on from the home page too, even more so, though the images on the right side are ads. Not an uncommon sight.--Elvey(tc) 22:43, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
My objection to the anti-sandwiching rule concerns mainly the case of images facing infoboxes. For instance, articles on minor states of the Holy Roman Empire are often rather short, but they are nevertheless "afflicted" with comparatively very lengthy infoboxes (and since infoboxes for former countries are narrower than normal, it makes those damn infoboxes even longer). Often, the infobox spreads over the entire length of the article, so that in order to respect the anti-sandwiching rule any image will have to be relegated to the bottom of the article, out of view. Now imagine when there are two infoboxes on top of each other....--Lubiesque (talk) 00:50, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Not necessarily. There are options like the {{stack}} template that allow you to place images next to the infobox along the right side of the article. You wouldn't be forced to dump them to the bottom. As for the larger issue of sandwiching text, I think it should be avoided when possible with the awareness that it is sometimes simply unavoidable. I don't believe this should be interpreted as a hard & fast rule against doing so. Perhaps the guideline could be improved, but it shouldn't be abolished altogether for the reasons mentioned above. --GoneIn60 (talk) 01:36, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I think the "rule" is unnecessary. Yes, two images should not be placed on the same line (that could be a rule), but I don't see why it should be "hard" to read text which is between two images that are parallel for a slight length on each side. FunkMonk (talk) 18:35, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Infoboxes are a different situation, I agree. You can't move them to the other side. The most you can do is write a longer intro and expand the article to force the beginning of the text down further to where image placement is less of an issue.

In a more perfect wikiworld, we'd give readers the ability to fold up the infobox and let the picture pop up where we want them to see it. But we're not there yet. Daniel Case (talk) 20:21, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Another sandwiching discussion[edit]

Your are invited to help form a consensus at Talk:Kobe_Bryant#Continuation_of_image_sandwiching_discussion regarding the placement of images in the article. Thanks in advance.—Bagumba (talk) 22:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:LEADIMAGE and Chloë Grace Moretz[edit]

These three images are all free-use and made at about the same time. The third is currently being used within the infobox; however, editors have made the occasional change supplanting it with one of the other two. I say #3 is preferred per WP:IMAGELEAD since it's the image used to identify Ms. Moretz to the reader (#1 hides half of her face; #2 is at a 45-degree angle from the camera). There has been no argument and no real edit war, but the editors persist. Am I correct in reverting? —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 06:56, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Setting an image size or using default[edit]

Should we be setting an image size to cater to the user not logged in and guessing what size monitor they have. Or should we be using the default image size so that people can set their default image size to bigger or smaller. Someone is arguing that "267px" is the optimal size for a user not logged in, and that the "vast majority of readers" are not logged in so get the small default size. The page is at Little Syria, Manhattan. What do you think? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:15, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

We recommend that users not set image sizes as to allow default thumbnail settings to work and to work with the device's web browser (mobile interface different from desktop, for example). However, there are times that you want to display an image at a larger size, and we do allow pixel sizing as needed. However, another option is to consider the "upright" parameter if we are talking about an image that is not, generally, in landscape orientation. --MASEM (t) 05:14, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
I normally directed people to MOS:IMAGES#Size and WP:IMGSIZE, although the wording is not as clear now as it was a year or so ago: both have become more of a "how to force the image size" rather than a "why not to force the size". --Redrose64 (talk) 12:25, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), Masem and Redrose64, the wording has not been as clear since February 3, 2015, because Adam Cuerden changed the "220px default" wording without discussion, stating, "This really isn't done anymore." Like I noted in that revert of his change, the 220px default matter is still done, and for good reasons -- browser complications. There is also the general factor that images that are too big can negatively affect the look of sections in articles (such as sections that are small). 220px is the default size, after all. The last thing we need are people generally setting the image size to 300px or to 450px, as in this case at the Gone Girl (film) article, or higher. It's that huge image size at the Gone Girl (film) article that brought me back to the "220px default" guideline; I was about to cite it, as I've often done, and then saw that it was removed. I have this guideline on my WP:Watchlist, but I somehow overlooked Adam Cuerden's change. Flyer22 (talk) 03:10, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree with your revision (that is, undoing Adam's change). We do want to avoid setting absolute pixel sizes - we have tools to make screen-flow layouts work well with relative sizing (eg that's the purpose of "upright"). Once in a while it is needed, but that's an exception. --MASEM (t) 03:18, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
I wasn't thinking about that comparatively minor change. I was thinking about the substantial changes that occurred on 27-28 May 2014. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Flipping an image[edit]

I was wondering if there is syntax or if a syntax could be created that would display an image flipped either vertically or horizontally without having to upload a separate file?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:06, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

There's nothing shown at WP:EIS, and I've never seen it done, so the answer is almost certainly no. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:04, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Is it possible for one to be created?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
You would need to file a feature request at phab:. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:26, 20 March 2015 (UTC)