Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images

"Most images should be right justified on pages" again

Ɱ, regarding this and this, what are you talking about? What "consistency with below"? That the section also states "Mul­ti­ple im­ages can be stag­gered right and left." does not at all equate to "In longer articles with more images, staggering images left and right, using |left is often preferred." Staggering images is usually a stylistic matter. Images being right-adjusted is the default. And as you know, this has been extensively discussed before. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:42, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Coming back years later, and then adding in your preference without further discussion? That is not a good move. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:45, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

For the 2017 discussion about this involving you, see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images/Archive 9#Right-justified images. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:52, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Just clarification of Multiple images can be staggered right and left. which is hopelessly vague, and literally directly contradicts the earlier MOS statement Most images should be right justified on pages. Others expressed further clarification there, only sandwiching pedants were opposed. But whatever, I'm not attached to it, and don't want to argue further. ɱ (talk) 03:31, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Ɱ, the "Multiple images can be staggered right and left." piece is enough leeway without overly endorsing staggering or stating that it's something that should be done. Your latest wording was not a clarification. It was you stating that staggering "is often preferred" in longer articles. By whom? Certainly not by me. As the previous discussion shows, we should keep staggering to a minimum, and not just in short articles. Since the text already states "Most images should be right justified on pages", the "Multiple images can be staggered right and left" text is simply reiterating that right-justified is not always the case. It's not a contradiction. The section then explains how staggering can be a problem. What is vague is "an exception" to the default, because neither you nor anyone else has noted when an image must be staggered left. Sure, if sandwiching can be avoided, we'd want to stagger it left instead of having it extend into the References section. But we can also just remove the image unless removing it is detrimental to the article. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:52, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Agree to disagree then, but I think most people would agree that the two statements are contradictory, not supplementing each other in a clear way. It's a weak point of the MOS that has led people to irrationally insist on right-only in articles only because that's the way the MOS says to, which is irritating. ɱ (talk) 04:17, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

• Staggering left and right used to be the preferred and recommended style, back in the days when nearly everyone had a screen of similar size and shape. People used to be made to do it at FAC, and I used to do it as a matter of course. But that has all changed now. But there are still times left-aligned images are better, especially to keep portraits facing into the page (covered somewhere else in the policy forest). The current statements seem rather sloppy and contradictory, & it would be good to sort that. I can't say I see many disputes over it these days though. Johnbod (talk) 04:39, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ɱ, we have different definitions of what contradictory is. I point to the statement that "most people are right-handed" as an example. The word most is there for a reason. It doesn't mean "all." Similarly, "most images should be right justified on pages" uses most for a reason and does not mean "always." So, of course, it's going to be the case that multiple images can be staggered right and left. As for "irrationally insist on right-only in articles"? What is irrational about it? There are solid reasons for it. We already have enough people insisting on staggering "just because." And by "just because", I mean because they personally prefer it or because some WP:GA or WP:FA article uses that style. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:42, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

We could change the "Mul­ti­ple im­ages can be stag­gered right and left." text to "Although mul­ti­ple im­ages can be stag­gered right and left when a left-aligned position is warranted [...]." If we do, it would definitely help to give an example of when a left-aligned image is preferable to a right-aligned image. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:55, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Renaming of page sections

Not sure whats going on but can all read over MOS:BROKENSECTIONLINKS the edits broke every shortcut and link from other MOS pages and templates. Need much more care before mass change in section titles.--Moxy 🍁 00:24, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

The above post by Moxy was originally made in the section "Most images should be right justified on pages" again, but, based of its content and edits made by EEng, myself, as well as Moxy,I believe it warrants its own section and so have moved it.—The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 01:19, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

• I have no problem if there is a change for clarity. Just needs to be in its entirety ...as in all in coming redirects and links changed or anchored. I would do this to help but I see they have changed a few times. So perhaps a talk (like this) so we can establish what change and implemented it.--Moxy 🍁 02:09, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

  I forgot myself and changed two section headings without remembering to add anchors/spans to keep incoming links all working. Now I've put the headings back, because the changes I'd made weren't important and they messed things up and I'm too lazy to insert the anchors and spans. There's nothing left to discuss. EEng 02:15, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Bold edits and multiple reverts

As per WP:PGBOLD new edits are welcomed....but once reverted a talk should take place or at the very least join ongoing talks. To quote our policy ....editors of policy and guideline pages are strongly encouraged to follow WP:1RR or WP:0RR standards."--Moxy 🍁 02:42, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Moxy. Regarding this, I clearly prefer the long-standing "most images should be right justified on pages" wording. EEng's "In most articles, most or all images are on the right side of the page" wording is simply telling readers that most images are like that, rather than stating that they should be like that. And I disagree with the removal of "should" per previous discussions. Most images being right-adjusted can easily change via editors going around and having most images placed on the left. What we want editors to know is that images should typically be right-adjusted unless there is a good reason to place them on the left side. But again, what are those good reasons? Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 05:43, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

And, Moxy, do you have any opinion on the right-adjusted matter? See the latest discussion about it above, and the following previous discussion about it: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images/Archive 9#Right-justified images. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 05:47, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

And I know that EEng doesn't prefer it, but I sense an RfC coming on, especially if the back and forth reverting continues. Might as well survey more editors on the "right justified" matter. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 05:55, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

3 small points, Original wording better! - image placement back and forth may sandwich text for some and not others? - And does Wikipedia:EISL still happen is some form or another? --Moxy 🍁 06:02, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

• Whatever. Look, I've made one final change [1] to which it's hard to imagine anyone objecting (though, of course, the unimaginable happens every day on WP). You guys can waste your time arguing about should. EEng 15:39, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Guidance on "cartoonish" graphics

Myself and some others have raised some concerns over at social distancing over the use of a series of "cartoonish" graphics for medical advice. You are welcome to join that discussion, and please make comments specific to that situation there to keep discussion centralized. For here, I was wondering if the MoS gives any guidance about, for instance, which types of fonts are most ideal for a graphic illustration. And, if not, should such guidance be added? I'm not envisioning a strict policy banning comic sans so much as more of a "if you have the choice, don't use comic sans" kinda thing. Sdkb (talk) 05:23, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Size

The guideline said: "Except with very good reason, a fixed width in pixels (e.g. 17px) may be specified." WP:THUMBSIZE says: "Except with very good reason, do not use [fixed width in pixels]." This contradiction was I believe unintentional, but since the previous wording is more in line with the other guideline, I've restored it until a new wording, if desired, can be agreed. DrKay (talk) 14:55, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I have changed to "Except with very good reason,[clarification needed] a fixed width in pixels (e.g. 17px) should not be specified." - no doubt that "not" had been removed at some point. There have been any numbers of undiscussed fiddles to this wording over the years, and the community's view is not very clear - the use of both fixed pixels and "upright" settings have been in decline for some years, it seems to me. DrKay's new wording of "absolutely necessary" clearly tightened the criterion considerably, in an unhelpfully vague way, as his own "clarify" tag showed. Johnbod (talk) 15:33, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

To this I've added the few cases where fixed pixels are generally allowed, please review if there's issues with that. --Masem (t) 16:01, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks - there are in fact many other cases where fixed pix are more accepted, for example lead images and those with odd shapes. Johnbod (talk) 16:58, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Propose moving MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES from subsection Images for the lead

Looking at the most recent RfC here, it appears that the decision was that there would be no ethnic galleries in articles, not just leads. The location of the NOETHNICGALLERIES guidance in the Images for the lead subsection implies that it only applies to the lead. I found this confusing. The RFCs came in stages, and one had a contested closing, making this hard to research.

Maybe move to the Pertinence and encyclopedic nature subsection higher up. LaTeeDa (talk) 18:41, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Or, maybe the RfC only applies to leads, although it says articles. S_Marshall, you closed the RfC referenced above, appreciate if you could clarify. LaTeeDa (talk) 20:45, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Strictly speaking it applies to infoboxes. We can understand "infoboxes" and "leads" as interchangeable in this context.—S Marshall T/C 00:38, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. These ethnic galleries are a cancer, they grow and grow. For example, Eurasian (mixed ancestry).

Proposal withdrawn.LaTeeDa (talk) 10:37, 17 April 2020 (UTC)