Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:19, 23 September 2015

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.

Disagreement over image at Jamie Dornan

Users Stemoc and Hzh disagree over which image of Jamie Dornan—this one or another—is more suitable to use in the infobox over the rationales of facial distortion, recognizability, profile vs. full face, distance, aesthetics, awkwardness, etc. The discussion is pretty deadlocked and it is veering close to incivility, and there's accusations of vandalism and edit warring and lack of good faith. I myself don't feel confident weighing in, but I do wonder if there are any other editors who would like to express their opinion on the matter or keep an eye on the discussion. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 17:59, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

For those interested in the discussion, there are actually three images to consider - 1, 2, 3. None of them are perfect, but I prefer image 1 which has no facial distortion and shows the full face. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hzh (talk • contribs) 10:57, 16 May 2015

If there are people who are interested in giving an opinion on this issue it would be much appreciated. Hzh (talk) 10:32, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi all, what about this image? Shows a smiling, full face, looking to the left. Lotje (talk) 10:40, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

It is a very nice image, although I'm not sure about the copyright status of this image, whether it was taken by a fan or if it's a professional image - here (see the tag in the image). It is certainly an option if it can pass the copyright test, but in the meantime, you are invited to vote for whichever one you'd prefer in the Jamie Dornan Talk page. Hzh (talk) 11:03, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to comment on VP proposal: Establish WT:MoS as the official site for style Q&A on Misplaced Pages

There is now a proposal at the Village Pump that WT:MoS be established as Misplaced Pages's official page for style Q&A. This would involve actively guiding editors with style questions to WT:MoS and away from other pages, which may include this one. The goal is to centralize discussion and make help easier to find without increasing opportunities for forum shopping. Participation is welcome, especially from editors who have fielded questions of this kind. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:13, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Image overload

Is there a guideline, MOS section, etc. concerning how many images is too many, relative to the amount of text in the article or on some absolute scale? As an example, take a look at Wythoff symbol, which by my count has 872 words of readable prose and 430 images. Is this appropriate? If not, what guideline or policy does it violate? —David Eppstein (talk) 20:37, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

@David Eppstein: No actual maximum image counts are specified as far as I know, but 430 images is a lot, and WP:IG may be applicable, also WP:NOTREPOSITORY. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:47, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:SIZE concerns might also come into play. In that specific article, the individual tables could be broken out into separate sub-articles that would be better to manage image # and total delivered content bytes. --MASEM (t) 15:54, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Another part of the issue is that there is a particular editor who insists on putting these same large image galleries of related content into many other articles, overwhelming the actual content of the articles, and he's very stubborn about putting them back whenever anyone tries to trim them down. See e.g. recent history of trihexagonal tiling and its talk page. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:27, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

• Is there an actual issue with the number of images in the article? It would be a bad idea to put hard limits on the number or ratio of allowable images—context and consensus should be what determines it. For instance, when I read the opening comment here, I assumed it was a small article flooded with a gallery of every image from a Commons category—but they're mostly small images organized in tables. This may still be more excessive, but it's not merely a gallery disguised as an article. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:48, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

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)

Suggest update to existing text about "upright=1.35" to better explain its effects

The page currently contains the following:

• Lead images should usually be no wider than "upright=1.35" (defaults to "300px").

I made what I thought was a minor change to better explain that:

• Lead images should usually be no wider than 300px. That is equivalent to using upright=1.35 if the default thumbnail width is 220px (220 multiplied by 1.35 then rounded to the nearest multiple of 10 equals 300), but larger defaults in user preferences will result in proportionally larger images (340px if the default is 250px, 410px if the default is 300px, or 540px if the default is 400px).

That was reverted with the explanation that it emphasized absolute size over relative size. Therefore I am proposing the following change which is shorter and does not change the emphasis on relative size:

• Lead images should usually be no wider than "upright=1.35" (displays at 300px based on the default thumbnail width of 220px, but larger if the preferences setting is 250px or greater).

Would appreciate any discussion, since I think the current text does not adequately explain it. For those not familiar with "upright" I made a chart at User:Zyxw/upright which shows its effects at each of the available thumbnail size settings in preferences (120px to 400px). Thanks. -- Zyxw (talk) 04:31, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

As the one who reverted your earlier change, your new version looks much better to me. But is it really accurate? It seems to imply that if I set a default thumbnail of 225px I will not see any change in size compared to if I set a default thumbnail of 220px. I would have thought that with thumbnail=220px I would see upright=1.35 at 297px, and with thumbnail at 225px I would see upright=1.35 at about 304px, noticeably larger. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:16, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Keep in mind there are very limited values of default thumb sizes that a user can select, with no choice as close as your 220px / 225px example. So that might be a non-situation we have to deal with. --MASEM (t) 05:28, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

The available values for "thumbnail size" in Preferences> Appearance are 120px, 150px, 180px, 200px, 220px (default), 250px, 300px, and 400px. As explained at Misplaced Pages:Extended image syntax § Size, "upright=Factor" will adjust a thumbnail's size to Factor times the default thumbnail size, rounding the result to the nearest multiple of 10. That math can be done on Misplaced Pages via {{#expr: SIZE * FACTOR round -1}}. So "upright=1.35" with the default of 220px displays the image at 300px (297 rounded), with preference set to 250px it displays at 340px (337.5 rounded), 300px preference displays at 410px (405 rounded), and 400px preference displays at 540px (540 rounded). You can confirm these numbers, as I have, by changing your Preferences, going to a page containing an image with "upright=1.35" (such the first row of image examples at User:Zyxw/upright), refreshing or purging that page to remove any cached images, then viewing the HTML source with your web browser (where you will actually see those pixel sizes in the image tags). -- Zyxw (talk) 08:11, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't think we should go into too much detail about size options, when the majority of or readers are not logged in and so get the default thumb size. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:55, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Based on the confusion caused by mentioning 250px, perhaps the following instead (current text followed by suggested text).

• Lead images should usually be no wider than "upright=1.35" (defaults to "300px").
• Lead images should usually be no wider than "upright=1.35" (displays at 300px based on the default thumbnail width of 220px, but may appear larger or smaller based on settings in preferences).

-- Zyxw (talk) 23:01, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Looks ok to me. I think the fact that this changes based on preferences is worth pointing out. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:52, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

No further comments added, so I made the change as shown in my previous comment. -- Zyxw (talk) 23:06, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Lead image

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#Elements of the lead section. A WP:Permalink for it is here. And, yes, I see the discussion immediately above this section about lead images. Flyer22 (talk) 13:18, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

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