Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images

Fixing images below the default size

There were numerous different wordings and suggestions proposed and none of them had consensus. A lot of the supports and opposes were incredibly unclear as to what exactly they were supporting or opposing, and the huge tangent about image alignment doesn't help. Reading this discussion made my brain hurt. Summary, no consensus for anything, as the discussion was not organized enough to reach one. (non-admin closure). Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:20, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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) ^(talk) 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)

• Comment - "a larger or smaller fixed size" reduces to "a fixed size", and conciseness is always good. Larger or smaller than what? I'd support "a fixed size" first, the longer version second. In any case, all guidance should discourage fixed sizes except where there is very good reason to use them, as they defeat the user preference (which is more than an aesthetic preference). I just recently learned that even infobox images can specify a proportional size by coding File: syntax for |image= and omitting |image_size=, as here. I think that's generally a Good Thing, not that it warrants an implementation crusade. No opinion as to the multiple images question. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:33, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - Nobody anywhere in this discussion above seems to think that, except for certain exceptions, flouting reader's preferences and setting image sizes to a fixed, specified size in pixels (rather than using relative sizing) is a good idea (despite this reversion). I also agree that the minimum change necessary would be to substitute

As a general rule, images should not be set to a fixed size. If an exception to this 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.

for the current advice. BushelCandle (talk) 20:59, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

This change would also brings our advice into line with our advice at Wikipedia:Image use policy#Displayed image size:

Except with very good reason, do not use px (e.g. thumbɭ300px), which forces a fixed image width. In most cases upright=scaling factor should be used, thereby respecting the user's base preference (which may have been selected for that user's particular devices).

BushelCandle (talk) 05:08, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• Despite the one oppose and zero supports, discussion here seems to have stabilized on something like BushelCandel's wording (which I support). But two bold attempts to actually change the MOS have been reverted by Sandstein with an edit summary that we need to wait for consensus first. What is there to wait for? This discussion (and the subproposal within it to make essentially this change) has been going for over six months. Do we need to start a new RfC just so we can record a clean set of opinions, since this wording is different than what we started this section with? —David Eppstein (talk) 07:31, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• Sorry if I've been a bother, I just don't see an obvious consensus at a glance, and no formal closure of the discussion. I don't have an opinion on the issue myself and won't revert again, but perhaps a formal assessment of consensus would be helpful.  Sandstein  09:43, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: I prefer that the explicit statement that we generally should not bypass the 220px default remain in the guideline; this per what is argued at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images/Archive 5#Setting an image size or using default. So I oppose the change. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:01, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

So, if I've understood you correctly, would you prefer lengthier; something more on the lines of:

As a general rule, images should not be changed from their default size to a fixed size.
If an exception to this general rule is warranted, forcing an image size to be either larger or smaller than the default (currently 220px) is done by placing a parameter in the image coding.
Except with very good reason, do not use px (e.g. thumbɭ300px), which forces a fixed image size. In most cases where a smaller or larger size than the default is justifiably needed, upright=scaling factor should be used, thereby respecting the user's base preference (which may have been selected for that user's particular devices by an adjustment in their preferences).

? BushelCandle (talk) 23:10, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Not quite; I'm stating that 220px is still the default size, unless I've missed something, and that we should be clear that editors should generally not bypass that size. Why not mention 220px as the default size in the "general rule" sentence? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:48, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Because it is incorrect for editors to assume that all readers keep their default size set at 220px. That assumption leads to behavior like setting size=300px when "larger than default" is the intended meaning, which is also incorrect, and may in some cases actually result in a smaller-than-default image size. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:51, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Spot on, David.

It's surprising how many otherwise erudite, sensitive and knowledgeable editors are still unaware of your explanation and the "upright" solution... BushelCandle (talk) 23:55, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

But the section also states the following: "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." and "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)." 220px is still listed as/considered the default. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:54, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

For the same reason it would probably be more accurate to change "currently 220px" in your suggestion above to "currently 220px for most users". Another way of saying it is that 220px is not really a global default image size; what it is, is the default value for each user's individual default image size. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:58, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps less confusingly, the initial value of the user default size preference. Two definitions of "default" are being used. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:01, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I would agree to that then. And, BushelCandle, I was already aware of the upright aspect. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:03, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure you were aware, Flyer22. Although it's very obvious from your contribution history that you are erudite, sensitive and knowledgeable in your editing, it's equally plain from the edit history of this page that you're the bee's knees when it comes to matters concerning images. BushelCandle (talk) 00:29, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Amended proposal (1)

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 changed from their default size to a fixed size.
If an exception to this general rule is warranted, forcing an image size to be either larger or smaller than the initial default (currently 220px for most users) is done by placing a parameter in the image coding.
Except with very good reason, do not use px (e.g. thumbɭ300px), which forces a fixed image size. In most cases where a smaller or larger size than the default is justifiably needed, upright=scaling factor should be used, thereby respecting the user's base preference (which may have been selected for that user's particular devices by an adjustment in their preferences).

Any objections? BushelCandle (talk) 00:29, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

The first sentence could be simplified even more with (I think) the same intent: "As a general rule, images should not be changed from their default size." —David Eppstein (talk) 00:33, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

the initial default (currently 220px for most users) - No, the initial default is 220px for all users, unless I'm missing something. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:55, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

"If an exception to this general rule is warranted, a fixed size may be specified using nnnpx in the image coding." ―Mandruss ☎ 01:01, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Every user has a default user size, set in that user's preferences. It is a "default" because it can be overridden by the size specified in an individual article. For most users, the default image size is 220px; this is the default default image size, or as you call it the initial default image size. Some users have changed that preference and have a default image size that differs from the default default image size. It is incorrect to write as if there is a single global default image size: the global default is not for the image size in articles, it is for the user's default image size. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:11, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

"In most cases, the default image size should be used. For registered users, this default size is specified in their user preferences, with an initial value of 220px. For unregistered users, the default size is 220px. Where a smaller or larger size than the default is justifiably needed, upright=scaling factor should normally be coded, thereby respecting the user's base preference. For example, upright=1.2 specifies 20% larger than the default size. A scaling factor of 0.75 (75% of the default size) is commonly used for tall images and may be abbreviated by omitting the scaling factor, as upright. Where absolutely necessary, a fixed size may be specified using nnnpx in the image coding, e.g. 300px. A px value should not be used except with very good reason." ―Mandruss ☎ 01:15, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

That looks better to me: same policy, with a more accurate description of what it means. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:00, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Optional, albeit not strictly related: "If you are a registered editor and work a lot with image layout, consider leaving your default size preference set to 220px, as this is the default size for a majority of readers." ―Mandruss ☎ 02:25, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

This discussion has been helpful. In view of the issues raised, I withdraw my first amended proposal and put forward an alternative below. BushelCandle (talk) 04:32, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Amended proposal (2)

At the moment we still write: "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 now propose changing this to

In most cases, the default image size should be used.
(For registered users, this default width is specified in their Preferences, with an initial value of 220px. For unregistered users, the default width is 220px. If you are a registered editor and work a lot with image layout, consider leaving your default thumbnail preference set to 220px, as this is the default width for a majority of readers.)
Where a smaller or larger size than the default is justifiably needed, |upright=scaling factor should normally be coded, thereby respecting the user's base preference. For example, |upright=1.3 specifies 30% larger than the default size. A scaling factor of 0.75 (75% of the default size) is commonly used for tall images and may be abbreviated by omitting the scaling factor, as |upright=. Where absolutely necessary, a fixed size may be specified using nnnpx in the image coding, for example 20px.
A px value, which forces a fixed image size, should not be used except with very good reason.

Any objections? BushelCandle (talk) 04:32, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Looks good to me, although I wonder why you're linking to meta's Help:Preferences instead of Help:Preferences. The latter mentions the preference we're talking about, and it has a hatnote link to the meta page "for full details". ―Mandruss ☎ 19:31, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Since only yourself and User:EEng have so far commented on this sub-section, I hope you won't find it too great a breach of normal discussion page etiquette that I have now made minor changes to take account of better internal linking and also changed "size" to "width" in some occurrences above.

With regard to User:EEng's magnificently superior proposals (and your equally perceptive comments) I do fear that sometimes the ideal can sometimes (at least temporarily) be the mortal enemy of the merely plausible (lowest denominator proposal). Sometimes it may be that we can make a huge leap forward; alas, sometimes if proposals are too radical and all-encompassing, then discussion grinds to a halt in a welter of fine detail. I'm anxious that, after many months, we do take concrete and immediate steps to improve our current advice. That's why, with no disrespect intended, I'll leave my alternative proposal (2) tabled in the hope it is not opposed. (If alternative proposal (2) does go through to implementation, there is nothing stopping us trying to improve the text on the page even further afterwards if we can subsequently agree a consensual version of alternative proposal (2a)...) BushelCandle (talk) 20:38, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

with no respect intended - None taken. ;) ―Mandruss ☎ 20:56, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Whoops! BushelCandle (talk) 21:41, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Bushel, a super-double-extra negative would have been clearer e.g. "Without no disrespect not unintended". EEng 21:46, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm happy to take 2 before 2A, but my concern remains its discouragement of use of upright. I actually think that's the only difference between them -- everything else in 2A is just a reorganization of the material already on MOS (with maybe one or two things imported from WP:Image_use_policy#Displayed_image_size. So no matter what, we have to deal with the "discouragement" issue, so let's do that first. Below I asked you to clarify what you're supporting -- is it about discouragement? EEng 21:03, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Very strong objections to this. Hardly anyone uses the "upright" parameter, and it is too late to change that. We should be encouraging people to set their own parameters, which most don't, which interacts bizarrely with the "upright" lot. There aren't enough people left in this discussion to create a convincing consensus either. Johnbod (talk) 08:19, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

A lot of people don't add inline citations supporting the text they add - but that does not stop us trying to ensure that our Manual of Style gives clear advice on both why and how to implement inline citations, does it? If people do use the old-fashioned and tyrannical 'fixed px width' image syntax to (unwittingly?) flout and over-ride logged in user's preferences, that doesn't mean we need to stop urging others to behave in a better and more knowledgeable way, does it? We're an educative project, aren't we? BushelCandle (talk) 03:49, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Amended proposal (2A)

I think that "In most cases, the default image size should be used... Where a smaller or larger size than the default is justifiably needed..." is too discouraging re use of upright, which really should be used much more often than it is currently -- most editors don't know about it -- to match image size to the situation, taking into account aspect ratio, the image's level of detail, desire to match size of nearby images, etc.

Use cases for a variety of upright values

Upright=0.5 (very tall, skinny img with large text labels) Upright=1.2 for legibility of (at least) arrow labels A, H, T, making them about the same size as caption font Upright=1.0 (just your average everyday image) Upright=1.2 for legibility Upright=0.5 (simple img looks fine shown small  – could be even smaller but better to match image appearing just above) Upright=1.2 for legibility Upright=1.35 (beautiful, highly detailed lead image)

Therefore, BushelCandle, would you object to substituting the following? Here I've pulled in the entire section for an integrated presentation. (I hope this isn't biting off too much at once.)

Size

See also: Image use policy on displayed image size

• Image sizes are manipulated via changes to their widths‍—‌after which software automatically adjusts height to maintain aspect ratio. (In most cases, references to an image's "size" really mean its width.)
• Each user has a "base" image width. For unregistered users ("IPs"), this is always 220 pixels. For registered users, the base width is initially 220px (when the user account is created) but this can be changed via user preferences.
• Where a smaller or larger image is appropriate, use |upright=scaling factor, which expands or contracts the image by a factor relative to the user's base width.
  • For example:
    • upright=1.3 might be used for an image with fine detail (e.g. a map or diagram) to render it "30% larger than this user generally wants".
    • upright=0.60 might be used for an image with little detail (e.g. a simple drawing or flag) which can be adequately displayed "40% smaller than this user generally wants".
  • "Landscape" images (short and wide) often call for upright greater than 1; "portrait" images (tall and narrow) may look best with upright less than 1.
  • Images should be large enough to reveal important detail without overwhelming surrounding article text.
    • Images in which a small region is relevant (but cropping to that region would reduce the coherence of the image) may need to be larger than normal, but upright=1.8 should usually be the largest value for images floated beside text.
    • If a larger value is used (e.g. for panoramas), then use center or none at the same time, so that the image stands alone. Or use {{wide image}} or {{tall image}} to present a large image in a scrollable box.
    • Lead images should usually use upright=1.35 at most.
  • Images within an article, especially those vertically proximate to one another, may be more appealing if presented at the same width.
• Where absolutely necessary, a fixed width in pixels (e.g. 20px) may be specified. This should be done only with very good reason because it ignores the user's base width preference. The resulting image should usually be no more than 400px wide and 500px tall, for comfortable display on the smallest devices "in common use" (though this may still cause viewing difficulties on some unusual displays); lead images should be no more than 300px wide.

Notes

Note I omitted the bit about upright defaulting to 0.75, which I think is an unnecessary and confusing geekish detail. EEng 18:47, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Common size for a tall image (upright=0.75)

---

Original caption:
Cavendish, Vermont, 20 years after Gage's accident. (a) Region of the accident site; (t) Gage's lodgings; (h) Harlow's home and surgery

Upright=1.2

---

Original caption:
Cavendish, Vermont, 20 years after Gage's accident. (a) Region of the accident site; (t) Gage's lodgings; (h) Harlow's home and surgery

I knew I was going to have to say this eventually. Wikipedia articles are not magazine articles, where the image you see is all you can get. We call them "thumbnails", and I consider them exactly that: graphical links to images that happen to be miniature copies of the target images. In many cases, the thumbnail is large enough and there is no need to click-thru, but that should not be a goal in my opinion. The fact that an enormous number of editors fail to get this doesn't weigh a lot with me. Thus, I have zero problem with the gentle discouragement of |upright= as written above. If the reader wants to see the detail (and many do not), they should find their left mouse button and press it. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:59, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

And I knew I'd have to say this eventually. The notion that in-article images should be "thumbnails", to conserve screen real estate, is an anachronism appropriate to the much smaller screens of 20 years ago, on which adequately-size images could easily crowd out too much of the text. (Of course, nowadays we have a new breed of very small mobile screens as well, but on these Wikimedia usually presents the images alone anyway, so the question of "crowding the text" is still irrelevant.)

I agree that in many (even most, as you say) cases the thumbnail is large enough so that there's no need for clickthrough, because the user has presumably set his default width preference to whatever size works for him for typical images (headshots, close/medium views of objects or locales) given his device, eyesight, typical viewing conditions, or whatever. But where we can reasonably predict that a particular image's level of detail needs to be presented at a bigger size than "this user typically wants", why shouldn't no-need-for-clickthrough be our goal? It's this relative sizing that makes upright so much better than fixed px sizing. Why should we set things up so that most readers will have to click back and forth between image and article as they follow the text?

And surely images with the classic "portrait" aspect ratio should use an appropriate upright setting, without which they come out grossly oversized -- somewhat too wide, and way too tall. I actually think this is the most common use case for upright, and since this use reduces image size I'd think you'd be all for it.

Users on slow connections, or with little monitors from 1999, can set their preference as appropriate to factor those considerations in. EEng 19:45, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

In my view, the anachronism is the magazine mind-set, which fails to exploit the cool new hyperlink feature the Internet gave us, the ability to click on what we want more information about (or, in this case, a better look at). And the freedom of choice not to do so. Why shouldn't no-need-for-clickthrough be our goal? Because that consumes screen real estate whether the reader cares about the detail of that image or not. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:59, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Like I said, if "Users on slow connections, or with little monitors from 1999, can set their preference as appropriate to factor those considerations in" -- as can users who don't care about details of images, and want to conserve real estate. EEng 20:05, 24 January 2016 (UTC) [Later P.S.: The way you have it, the reader has to click through whether he cares about real estate or not. I don't see it as obvious that real estate conservation necessarily should have the highest priority. 22:26, 24 January 2016 (UTC)]

I didn't say anything about not caring about the details of images in general. I said, for any given image, many readers don't care about the detail of that image. They should be given the choice per image, not site-wide. And let's not forget that the large majority of readers are not registered and don't have preferences, and that will forever be the case. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:29, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, we can only do what we think will best serve a hypothetical average reader. Can you explain what you're illustrating by including the image above (using upright=0.75)? I've added the same image at upright=1.2, plus the caption that goes with the image in the article. To me, you're making my point -- why even bother having a caption when it refers to features that are completely illegible to the reader (i.e. at upright=0.75)? EEng 20:55, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

The average reader is the unregistered reader, and that's not hypothetical. I wasn't aware of the original caption for that image (it wasn't in your collapsed content above), and I agree that one should be larger. I also think that's a rare case, and it's reasonably included under the language in Proposal 2, "Where a smaller or larger size than the default is justifiably needed, |upright=scaling factor should normally be coded...". It's justifiably needed. What I'm seeing far more of is thumbnails that are oversized for no other reason than to save the reader a click-thru. And many times it's not even that, the editor just thought it looked better a little larger. Over all I still think Proposal 2 works better than 2A. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:14, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I just don't get it. I go to a lot of trouble to select appropriate images and put them next to the relevant text, so that the reader can refer to the image while reading. The reader shouldn't have to click through to understand what the image is showing him, then click back and forth, and if real estate is a problem than we should miniaturize headings and get rid of the left-side toolbar that takes up 1/6 of a typical screen but is almost never used by the casual reader. And what's wrong with editors adjusting image size to make the page to look better? EEng 21:38, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Keep in mind that it's not just "old" monitors and slow connections. The mobile device screen is not the same resolution as a typical monitor now-days. There's a reason that pixel-perfect resolutions are nearly eliminated from modern web development. The same purpose should be done here. That said, while pixel sizing should be avoided, there are times where percentage-of-page-width can be appropriate for spanning images - ones that are not running in prose. Most of the examples we're talking about aren't being tailored to be running alongside prose, so there's no need to really play with the size. But if we're talking about a section-spanning header, or something similar that is beyond prose, then that might be a reason to use "width=50%" or the like. I would make a distinction between prose and non-prose running images. --MASEM (t) 01:36, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think our current wiki-markup allows percentage of page width as one of its image sizing options. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:14, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Masem! I'm afraid I have no idea what you're saying here, because I don't know what you mean by "pixel-perfect resolutions" and "prose and non-prose running images", "tailored to be running alongside prose", "section-spanning header", "beyond prose"... what do those things mean? EEng 04:17, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

"Pixel-perfect" are layouts that are designed to fit into a specifically sized browser window or the like, heavily relying on "px" specifications in the CSS or equivalent markup, instead of using relative widths. Prose-running are those that are go along standard paragraphs of text, while non-prose-running are those going against other types of content, such as a table, list, or similar organization. --MASEM (t) 04:22, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Upright=1 – too big!

Upright=1 – much is illegible, rendering caption puzzling

---

Original caption:
Phrenologists contended that destruction of the mental "organs" of Veneration and Benevolence caused Gage's behavioral changes. Harlow may have believed that the "Organ of Comparison" was damaged as well.

Upright=0.4 – right size

Upright=1.4 – now legible

---

Original caption:
Phrenologists contended that destruction of the mental "organs" of Veneration and Benevolence caused Gage's behavioral changes. Harlow may have believed that the "Organ of Comparison" was damaged as well.

OK, so when you say, "Most of the examples we're talking about aren't being tailored to be running alongside prose, so there's no need to really play with the size", you're saying that images that are floated next to prose usually shouldn't have their sizes adjusted? If that's what you're saying, I don't see why.

At right I've shown two images at upright=1. Wouldn't you agree that one should be much smaller, and the other at least somewhat larger? EEng 06:00, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

There are reasons to play with prose-running image sizes, I agree there. The Phrenology is a good case because the text on the image is specifically the subject of discussion so it does need to be legible, so adjustment via relative widths and/or upright is fine (ideally a method respecting the user's thumbnail size selection). I'm not sure on shrinking the image too small, however, as then you could be pressing even a short phrase caption into a tight vertical configuration. Upright=0.4 is rather small already and I'm using the default thumb size.

What we should be careful about doing is trying to play with image sizes to make the page "look good". Images have to be legible, yes, and images that are more portrait than landscape do not need to be presented at the same width as regular landscape images. But I would argue that unless you have a good reason to change the display size, it should be left alone, letting the software manage them in a smart way. While we should aim to make the layout visually interesting for articles, and making sure the images presented are useful, we should not be trying to make a visually impressive layout as there are far too many device combinations to try to work towards. Various browsers, and the Mediawiki software is smart enough to make appropriate decisions on how to scale images, so we shouldn't try to second guess that unless we have a good reason to (like legibility). --MASEM (t) 16:32, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm still puzzled by what you're saying. "unless you have a good reason to change the display size, it should be left alone, letting the software manage them in a smart way... Various browsers, and the Mediawiki software is smart enough to make appropriate decisions on how to scale images" -- huh? In what way does "software manage" the images or their size? How do browsers and Mediawiki "make appropriate decisions on how to scale images"? What are you talking about? Images are displayed at the user-selected width, possibly modified by upright; if there's no upright then they're all the same, all the one user-selected width, perdiod. What's all this "software management" you're talking about??? EEng 16:46, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

From what I thought I have read on the MediaWiki software and just spot-checked, that it does alter image sizes when it knows it is browser on a mobile device or using the mobile web page version so that images will fit more comfortably into the smaller screen, potentially overriding any user preference that may have been set. If anything, this is more a reason to stay to upright and relative width sizes, which stay respected by these adjustments, and those I'm not arguing against. I am arguing that we should be excessively playing with image sizes for simple look/aesthetics reasons as that is something out of our control. --MASEM (t) 17:01, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

As someone who is very prone to whoopsies herself, I assume you meant to write "we should not be excessively playing with image sizes for simple look/aesthetics reasons as that is something out of our control", yes? BushelCandle (talk) 21:37, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

My apologies -- it never occurred to me you were talking about mobile. And I agree we shouldn't be excessively playing with image sizes, but what constitutes "excess" may be a tricky question. As the ancient Greeks proverb goes, "Practice moderation, but not to excess!"

Very strong objections to this (again). Hardly anyone uses the "upright" parameter, and it is too late to change that. We should be encouraging people to set their own parameters, which most don't, which interacts bizarrely with the "upright" lot. There aren't enough people left in this discussion to create a convincing consensus either. Johnbod (talk) 08:20, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

!voting on 2A/2B

• Support in broad principle. BushelCandle (talk) 20:46, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Wait... what is it you're supporting in broad principle? EEng 21:03, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

From this edit [1] I gather you're supporting 2A. EEng 21:38, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Re the editsum in that edit, WP:BOLD doesn't mean implement content that is currently under discussion, clearly contested, and lacking consensus. I call foul, and I object to it as written because it so clearly demonstrates the magazine mind-set. It doesn't even consider the possibility of clicking thru. But I'll leave it with you guys, good luck. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:45, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I think you're right to call foul, and I expected to be instantly reverted again. However, I genuinely think that the version is 7 steps forward (and, perhaps, 2 steps backwards). Surely you can build on that version though, and tweak it to add the whole reason they're called 'thumbnails' and also tweak the wording to provide powerful ammunition against those edit warriors who might otherwise regard it as a licence to have images sized extraordinarily? BushelCandle (talk) 02:49, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

While I decided to !vote Yes in the RfC (hey it's only one !vote among many), I've experienced a minor crisis of confidence here, and I'm no longer feeling confident enough to go any deeper into this. First, it occurs to me that the "thumbnail" term and concept could be holdovers, historical artifacts, from 14 years ago and before. This could go to the word "anachronism" used in recent discussion. Further, I lack any experience in important areas such as mobile. I'm not jumping the fence, but I'm far closer to it and I would prefer to abstain from this point. I'm good at writing, but it looks like there's enough talent in that area already present. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:19, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support in that I think this is an improvement. It's less ambiguous and addresses the most common misinterpretations of the size guidelines. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:17, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support the recent bold changes, which I think are a significant improvement. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:24, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support (obviously). EEng 01:46, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
• Attention, esteemed fellow editors! I've made some changes here [2] -- mostly slight, but some to emphasize the dangers of too-large images. I guess we could call this 2B (or not). EEng 05:43, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Still doesn't alleviate my concern. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:24, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose, per my comment in the #Discussion of "sizing discouragement" section below. That is where my "oppose" vote is. Look there for other votes or almost-votes. Someone (I'm guessing it was EEng before I look to see who) unnecessarily split material. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:00, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Hardly anyone uses the "upright" parameter, and it is too late to change that. We should be encouraging people to set their own parameters, which most don't, which interacts bizarrely with the "upright" lot. There aren't enough people left in this discussion to create a convincing consensus either. Johnbod (talk) 08:21, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose whatever this is about, as it's no longer clear. Not sure what Johnbod means about no one using the upright parameter, because it's used all the time. Please stop making bold changes to the guideline. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:08, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Isn't the upright= thing kind of a hack? I mean, it's a parameter that defaults to shrinking the image down to, what is it, 70% of the default? It's a bit odd to advocate for what's basically hacking the code. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 02:12, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Adam Cuerden, If you code |upright alone, it's the same as |upright0.75, which is a stupid, confusing "feature" having to do with its original use with portait-aspect (i.e. "upright") images. But no one does that in real life, and it has nothing to do with its usefulness for resizing images in general.

Upright's superiority over fixed-width sizing e.g. 275px is that upright enlarges or shrinks relative to the user's preference-set "base" width. As someone pointed out, 275px is presumably intended to enlarge the image, but if the user has set his base width to (say) 300px because of bad eyesight, then 275px will actually make it smaller for that user. If you code, instead, upright=1.25, then every user gets this image 25% than his "regular" images. EEng 02:58, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

That may be, but it's still a hack. The solution is probably a MediaWiki code issue: Get a property similar to upright added without the bizarre default, and it'd be far more supportable, because while you're using something otherwise than it was intended, there's always a chance of "improvements" breaking your usage completely. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 06:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

You don't seem to be clear on what hack really means in this context.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:21, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support in broad principle. If wording needs to be tweaked "just so" later, it can be, but continuing to squabble over minor details is dragging this out. The fact that upright isn't used much is because we're not advising that it be used and telling people how to do it. The cause–effect argument on that point above is backwards. The "it's a hack" argument is also invalid, for reasons others have already explained. Even if it were true, the fact that a problem might happen some day is insufficient to derail dealing with a real one now. The MW develoepers are actually pretty careful about not breaking things, so the concern is overblown. And again, it's not a hack. A parameter that takes a whole or fractional integer value (regardless what its default is) isn't in "hack mode" when you use it one way and "normal" mode in another. Software doesn't work that way; it operates on whatever values it was engineered to support. And we have a policy to comply with here. Something has to be done; this is the best proposal so far; if it's not perfect, it will be fixed later.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:19, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Discussion of "sizing discouragement"

• Comment: How does this or this current wording prevent the type of image disaster I mentioned before? I don't see that this new wording will help in that regard. What I see is that when an editor blows an image up to an unreasonable size, I and/or others will no longer be able to point to this image guideline and state that such blowing up shouldn't be done. The "As a general rule" and "In most cases, the default image size should be used" type of wordings helped for quite sometime in keeping unreasonable image size under control. So I still support generally advising against making an image bigger than Wikipedia's default image size, and oppose the removal of that aspect. And since, in that discussion, Masem agreed with me reverting back to the longstanding wording, I have to ask his opinion on this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:54, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
  • The image disaster you list is sized absolutely rather than relatively, above the recommended 400px maximum, and interacts badly with two-column mode; it would probably not be characterizable as a disaster when set alongside normally flowed text (especially in the default right-side position). And it's a good example of an image for which larger-than-default sizing is helpful, in that the people in the image are so small as to be unrecognizable at the default size. In short, if you are trying to set a precedent of "no big images, ever", you picked a poor hill to stand on. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:14, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't agree with having images that size to view the actors, especially when the actors are identifiable by the wikilinks in the caption and/or by a person clicking on the image. There are very few cases where I would agree that a Wikipedia image should be that size. And we don't use that size in the cast sections of our film articles; anyone is free to ask at WP:Film if they have doubts about that. I'm with Mandruss that "Wikipedia articles are not magazine articles, where the image you see is all you can get. We call them 'thumbnails', and I consider them exactly that: graphical links to images that happen to be miniature copies of the target images. In many cases, the thumbnail is large enough and there is no need to click-thru, but that should not be a goal in my opinion. [...]. If the reader wants to see the detail (and many do not), they should find their left mouse button and press it." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:28, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

And, Masem, thanks for weighing in. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:34, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

You and Mandruss have a very parochial view of how to read Wikipedia. Left mouse button? What's that? The computer I'm using this on has no mouse (one clicks on the trackpad), and has no concept of left and right for its clicks. And I'm sure there are still people reading articles in hardcopy, for which finding some way to convince the viewer to show a larger image isn't even possible. An image should be sized to be informative, not to get out of the way. If you want tiny tiny thumbnails, set a smaller default, don't force your preferences on all readers. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:48, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that we're trying to balance 100s of possible computer/monitor/aspect ratio/layout preferences in addition to the issues with non-free if the images all fall into that. There is no "one size fits all" solution, particularly when we know most visitors to wikipedia are not registered users and thus using our selected default. For that reason, anything that sets a fixed size can be potentially harmful to these unknown configurations, while non-sized, percent-width, or upright= set images work across all platforms even if this means the image might be smaller for a specific configuration. While we provide WP for offline reading, it is by design an online encyclopedia so features that offline readers can't use, we're not to ignore the usefulness of those features (such as links that can be followed to larger images). We're not going to be able to readily satisfy every possible situation, and there's always IAR for unique cases, but we are looking to best serve the greatest common denominator here. --MASEM (t) 06:01, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I completely agree with all that. What I'm complaining about is the Procrustian attitude (not from you) that we cannot allow any positively-worded description of ways to resize images because all images must be exactly the same size, and that the only way to see an image at an informative size is to go view it on a separate page, separated from its context. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:26, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I find your reasoning impossible to follow. The only thing more one-size-fits-all than 220px (sometimes modified by upright) is 220px (period, never modified). I think we're all agreed that absolute px sizing is almost always a bad idea, and the text says so. Can you take a look at the examples at right and give your thoughts to my question about them (above [3])? EEng 06:24, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

No, not a very parochial view of how to read Wikipedia; just a more practical view when it comes to unnecessarily increasing image size or adding huge images in ways that are detrimental to an article. The new wording makes those of us who have to deal with such bad image formatting unable to sufficiently combat such bad image formatting. Like I stated above, "The 'As a general rule' and 'In most cases, the default image size should be used' type of wordings helped for quite sometime in keeping unreasonable image size under control." I can only see this new wording undermining that. So as you probably guessed, I feel that this needs a WP:RfC, given that the previous wording has been standard for so long and that I know many editors who still cite it. For example, there are surely some editors at the WP:GA or WP:FA pages who would be interested in weighing in on this matter. As for the mouse aspect Mandruss mentioned, it clearly should not be taken as literally as you took it. Yes, I know, I know, you were making a point about the existence of different ways to view Wikipedia. But I don't have a mouse either (I have a touchpad), and that doesn't stop me from clicking on the image if I want a better view of it. It seems that you and others are trying to appeal to all readers; that's not always possible, and Wikipedia commonly gives priority to the majority rather than the minority. For the minority, it commonly has alternative options. You argue, "If you want tiny tiny thumbnails, set a smaller default, don't force your preferences on all readers.", but similar has been stated about our editors who do not want to view offensive images; we have them view them anyway, and only let them know after the fact that they can change their image settings so that they don't see the offensive images. Those editors feel that the offensive images are forced on them. I'm not stating that I prefer tiny images; like Mandruss noted, "In many cases, the thumbnail is large enough and there is no need to click-thru." I'm stating that there usually is not a good reason to bypass that default size or to have a huge image in the article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:24, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to discuss your reference to "those of us who have to deal with such bad image formatting". You don't have to deal with the image formatting of images project-wide, nor it is clear that this actually is "bad image formatting". The normal Wikipedia approach would be to leave these questions to the editors working on each article. When do we diverge from that approach and make a rule in MOS?

Well, it's long been an axiom of mine that something should be added to MOS when editor time has, and continues to be, spent litigating the same issue over and over on numerous articles, either

• (a) with generally the same result (so we might as well just memorialize that result, and save all the future arguing), or
• (b) with different results in different cases, but with reason to believe the differences are arbitrary, and not worth all the arguing -- a final decision on one arbitrary choice, though an intrusion on the general principle that decisions on each article should be made on the Talk page of that article, is worth making in light of the large amount of editor time saved.

Please supply some evidence that either or both of those conditions applies to image sizing. Otherwise, your talk of being "unable to sufficiently combat such bad image formatting" sounds more like you're "unable to convince editors working on various articles that my opinions about image sizing are the right ones", and you want something in MOS that favors your opinion. EEng 08:01, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

EEng, could you not cut in between discussion like this? Doing so makes for confused and disorganized reading. I disagree with your entire "08:01, 25 January 2016 (UTC)" post, and I've been clear about why. The "As a general rule" wording worked fine for this guideline, just like it works fine for the WP:Lead guideline despite editors who continue to try to get that guideline changed in the same disorganized fashion that you have changed this one. I'm not going to point to more examples like the aforementioned one since you apparently don't see that image size as a problem for a cast section. Unnecessary, bloated images are problems, including when it comes to WP:SANDWICHING matters. I'm not stating any of this out of personal preference; I'm stating it because I have seen it be an issue for years (keep in mind that I have been with this site since 2007), with many editors fighting over image size. Once we point editors to the "As a general rule" wording, the dispute usually settles down. Well, no more, since you and BushelCandle took it upon yourselves to change a longstanding guideline that worked well the way it was. Certain editors here simply don't like rules and don't know how to adhere to them. They have a "rules are meant to be broken" attitude, or they evoke WP:Ignore all rules for everything. They want our guidelines and even our policies to be loose with everything so that they can do what they want; I'm the exact opposite of that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:29, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm specifically addressing this particular one of your posts, so this is the right place, and the indenting makes it clear there's a branch in the thread. Other than that, I'll just note that you've done nothing that claim there's a "longstanding problem", without giving any evidence (I too have need here since 2007, BTW.) What you call editors fighting over image size (in bold, for some reason) may very well just be editors discussing image size and (I'm guessing) not always coming to the conclusion you prefer. Thus your desire for a rule that supports your preference.

As for "Certain editors here simply don't like rules and don't know how to adhere to them", here are two of my favorite wikiquotes:

The flip side of "ownership" is the problem of editors who come to an article with a particular agenda, make the changes they want to the page according to their preconceived notions of what should be, and then flit off to their next victim, without ever considering whether the page really needed the change they made, or whether the change improved the article at all ... Their editing is an off-the-rack, one-size-fits-all proposition, premised on the idea that what improves one article, or one type of article, will automatically improve every other article or type of article ... Wikipedians should worry more about those who hit-and-run, and less about those who feel stewardship towards the articles they work so hard on. -- Beyond My Ken

One area the hit and run editor gets involved in is the formatting ... The quality of work has increased in some areas, which makes it harder to contribute without good knowledge in the subject matter and sources. Fiddling with the formatting seems to be a suitable alternative passtime. -- Ritchie333

EEng 05:12, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

You didn't have to cut ahead of David Eppstein's post to reply to me. And the indenting aspect does not help much, especially when one knows that Wikipedia editors have different ideas about indenting and commonly do not pay attention to the time stamps unless it's to see whose name is beside the post. As for your assumption that "What [I] call editors fighting over image size (in bold, for some reason) may very well just be editors discussing image size and ([you're] guessing) not always coming to the conclusion [I] prefer. Thus [my] desire for a rule that supports [my] preference.", you are wrong. It was fighting. And, yes, I've seen Beyond My Ken fighting over image size as well. I haven't been involved in many image size disputes. I have occasionally reverted unreasonable or unneeded image sizes (always the ones that increase image size from the 220px default since decreasing image size away from that default is usually not what editors argue over), and I have pointed them to the "As a general rule" aspect of the guideline that is currently not there. I meant exactly what I relayed above: "I'm not stating any of this out of personal preference; I'm stating it because I have seen it be an issue for years (keep in mind that I have been with this site since 2007), with many editors fighting over image size. Once we point editors to the 'As a general rule' wording, the dispute usually settles down." You are obviously free to doubt that, but the doubt is misplaced. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:37, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Third request for you to provide even a few diffs, without which doubt trumps unsupported assertion. EEng 07:09, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

What I've stated is common knowledge, and that includes Beyond My Ken's disputes over image sizes. Either way, refer to where I relayed above, "I'm not going to point to more examples like the aforementioned one since you apparently don't see that image size as a problem for a cast section. Unnecessary, bloated images are problems, including when it comes to WP:SANDWICHING matters." It is clear to me that nothing I state on this matter, with or without diffs, is going to change your mind or contribute to you truly understanding my viewpoint; so I will not be digging through edit histories to provide any such diffs of image disputes, especially since such image disputes are common knowledge. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:25, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

<rolls eyes>No one disputes that "unnecessary, bloated images are problems" -- the dispute is whether a rule is needed to address that problem, versus just letting editors work it out like any other content issue.

Anyway, it's not me you need make understand, but everyone else, and the diffs I request would serve that goal well. If such disputes are really so common, and their outcome so universally in your favor, it would be easy to supply two or three examples. From your lame excuses I conclude you just make shit up.

Worth noting, too, are your repeated statements to the effect that you are frequently unable to prevail on these questions until you point to this MOS provision you so mourn. What that means is that your arguments are unconvincing, not just to me but to many others as well. EEng 08:01, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

We clearly see things differently. And I couldn't care less that you roll your eyes; it speaks volumes about your maturity level, your inability to discuss matters without resorting to snide remarks or gestures and somehow expecting others not to do the same. Your changes to our guidelines and policies are often disputed for valid reasons, but you always think you are right and barely ever listen to others. You make changes to our guidelines and policies without consensus, as you did in this other case to this very guideline, when the statements at the very top of these pages are clear that significant changes to them should have consensus. And you think I am supposed to indulge you further? Not a chance. You stating that it's "[w]orth noting, too, are your repeated statements to the effect that you are frequently unable to prevail on these questions until you point to this MOS provision you so mourn. What that means is that your arguments are unconvincing, not just to me but to many others as well." proves that you don't listen and that you are beyond presumptuous. Sorry, but you can't bait me as easily as you bait others. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:52, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

My experience is the opposite: very very often, article layouts look bad when all images are forced to be the same size as each other. It is more natural, gives a less mechanical appearance, and is just plain more readable and informative to size images so that, for instance, text (in scientific diagrams) is readable, so that the image is wide enough to allow its caption to be fewer than 10 lines long, so that tall images are thinner than the default, etc. I do not think the MOS should dictate that all images be the same size and I think your insistance that it should is a violation of WP:CREEP. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:30, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Amen, and might I humbly suggest that the images I've added at right illustrate this very well. EEng 06:35, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes. Another example that I recently had promoted to Good Article: binary logarithm. Two images are smaller than default (and would overwhelm the article if forced to become larger), three are larger (and their text would become illegible if forced to be smaller), and one is the default size. I think that this sort of thing is much more common, at least in the articles I edit, than articles where the default size is a good fit for all images. The GA reviewer didn't catch the absolute rather than relative image sizing but I have since fixed that. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:44, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

There was no WP:CREEP aspect in my comment by arguing for the longstanding wording. And even if there had been, there would be no violation since WP:CREEP is an essay, despite the efforts of some editors to elevate it to a guideline. I will now alert the WP:GA and WP:FA pages, and some other pages, to this discussion. And I might throw a WP:RfC tag on this discussion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:39, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

And, for the record, the "As a general rule" wording gave editors enough leeway to change the image size if needed, just like the "As a general rule" wording at WP:Lead gives editors enough leeway to have the lead exceed four paragraphs if needed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:46, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Can I make a suggestion, Flyer22? Since, as someone said, the new text is magnificently superior to the old, with the possible exception of how much discouragement there should be on size adjustments, can you propose what text you'd like to see changed or inserted? Perhaps we can arrive at something we can all agree on, and even if not, a useful RfC outcome is way more likely if both "sides" have worked together to frame the question(s) the RfC presents to the community. EEng 07:12, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Your dogmatism is showing again. WP:LEADLENGTH does not say leads should be four paragraphs, even as a general rule; rather, it suggests reasonable guidelines for matching numbers of paragraphs to article lengths. We should do the same in matching image sizes to their contexts. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:50, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

David Eppstein, perhaps you missed where WP:Lead states right in the introduction, "As a general rule of thumb, a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate." And perhaps you missed where WP:LEADLENGTH states, "As a general guideline—but not absolute rule—the lead should usually be no longer than four paragraphs." Both of those are indeed "as a general rule" wordings, and are not at odds with me stating, "just like the 'As a general rule' wording at WP:Lead gives editors enough leeway to have the lead exceed four paragraphs if needed." Nothing to do with any dogmatism you perceive on my part.

For the record here on this talk page, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this and this are the pages I alerted to this discussion. That should be enough for outside input. If it's not, a WP:RfC tag is next. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:29, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

• Flyer22, I really wish you'd taken to heart my suggestion that we first define the issue among ourselves before calling in more editors. What you've now done is post to several project-space talk pages (e.g. [4]) a notice which reads, in part:

The discussion concerns whether or not we should keep the following wording: "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."

This makes no sense, because it talks about "fixed" sizes, and there's no issue there -- the text already strongly discourages all fixed sizes. What you've done is guaranteed to cause confusion now. I'm asking you -- again -- to propose text you'd like to see added or changed in the text as it stands, so we can discuss it first and perhaps come to agreement. And if not, then at least we'll have a clear question to pose to others, not a fractured one like you have now. The text you've posted all over the place wouldn't even make sense added to the current text -- there's no sensible place to add it. EEng 07:44, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I've been clear that I support the "As a general rule" wording that you helped change. There is no need for me to propose wording when that is the wording I support. That wording is the wording that is in dispute, since the beginning of this discussion. It is the wording that was replaced. So I fail to see how the note I left about it "guarantee[s] to cause confusion now." The way this discussion is set up is what is apparently confusing editors (per below). The current text in the guideline should be reverted to the WP:STATUSQUO. It is obviously disputed.

On a side note: Pinging my former username does not work; I do not need to be pinged to this discussion anyway. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:29, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose all attempts to enforce image size parameters. This RfC has gotten so long and unwieldy I have no idea where to post this. I do not accept a "one-size-fits-all" set image size for Wikipedia images. To me that is irrational. Appropriate image size can and should vary based on the image itself, the caption (and its length, and whether it fits felicitously or has unsightly widows), the size of the images or other boxes/structures (like infoboxes) above or below the image, the size and amount of text adjacent to the image, the relative importance of the image, the number of other images in the article/section, and so forth. Softlavender (talk) 11:39, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose, per Softlavender. I oppose a central one-size-fits-all policy. Leave it up to editors on the page. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:02, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

We should probably take that up at the actual policy then. This is a guideline trying to help the editorship comply practically with the policy. It may well be that what emerges works out fine in practice, but there seem to be concerns here that the policy wording is outdated.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:28, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Should the guideline maintain the "As a general rule" wording or something similar?

The following wording used to be in the guideline: "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." The guideline currently looks like this. Above on the guideline talk page, there is concern that the "As a general rule" wording is limited, and that we shouldn't assume that all readers keep their default size set at 220px; assuming such can lead people to use improper image settings. There is also concern that there are few cases where an image needs to be above the 220px setting, and that the 220px rule has kept unreasonable image sizes at bay and settled disputes over image size for years. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:33, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, or something similar. Like I argued above, I don't agree that we commonly need bigger images, and unreasonable bloated image size can be detrimental to articles, including with regard to WP:SANDWICHING issues. The 220px default usually suffices. This rule has also helped settle fights over image size. Mandruss stated, "Wikipedia articles are not magazine articles, where the image you see is all you can get. We call them 'thumbnails', and I consider them exactly that: graphical links to images that happen to be miniature copies of the target images. In many cases, the thumbnail is large enough and there is no need to click-thru, but that should not be a goal in my opinion. [...]. If the reader wants to see the detail (and many do not), they should find their left mouse button and press it." I agree with that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:36, 25 January 2016 (UTC) To me, this rule is similar to the WP:Lead "As a general rule" guideline about generally not exceeding four paragraphs in the lead unless needed, which has worked fine for years. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:00, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
• Yes, but maybe not as strongly worded. I think it's important that we discourage changing the image size from the default, but also make an allowance for the many situations where it is actually warranted. Kaldari (talk) 22:22, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
• No. The wording that disallows image sizing over 1.8 times the default is sufficient; it is false in practice and also a bad idea to force most images to be exactly the default size. The discussion above provides many good examples of images that should not be the default size, and I don't want guideline wording that encourages wikignomes to go around "fixing" non-default image sizes or imposing strict size requirements as a condition for passing GA or DYK. I would also note that this whole RfC completely misses one of the main points of the recent discussion and bold changes to this part of the MOS, which was primarily about changing from wording that was neutral about using absolute (pixel-based) vs relative (upright parameter) image sizing to wording that instead strongly discouraged absolute sizing. I am very much in favor of that change and would not want to see it lost in wankery over how strictly we should adhere to one-size-fits-all image sizing. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:18, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
• Yes - The issue arises largely from the different ways our minds are wired. Some of us are engineers, others artists. The same differences exist for readers, too, by the way. I'm the engineer type, but I believe this !vote gives the best balance. Agree with Eppstein as to fixed sizing, disagree as to wankery. User Eeng is on the other side of the issue. If they are an Electrical engineer, as I've always assumed, they are an unusual one in my opinion. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:57, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Since you seem to think engineers are mindless robots blindly applying rigid rules, I'll take what you say as a compliment. (I don't think most engineers are like that, BTW – at least not good ones. And David Eppstein's a computer scientist himself, so maybe you've drawn the technical-nontechnical battles lines incorrectly.) EEng 04:45, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• No per David Eppstein gives, plus it's redundant to the text already in place, which reads:

Where absolutely necessary, a fixed width in pixels may be specified. This should be done only where absolutely necessary because it ignores the user's base width preference. The resulting image should usually be no more than 400px wide...

Give the "only where absolutely necessary" injunction, there should be very few instances of fixed sizing anyway. And in those cases, I trust my esteemed fellow editors to choose that size with wisdom and discretion, taking into account whatever unusual needs led to fixed sizing being "absolutely necessary" in the first place. Extra verbiage just to further discourage the 220-to-400–pixel case seems overanxious. EEng 04:45, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, or something similar, but with weaker wording dropping "absolutely necessary", and no pushing the "upright" parameters. Lead images should be exempted - imo 300px should be normal for these in most articles. I still think images fixed too small are a more common problem than images fixed too large, but few seem to share that view. Johnbod (talk) 08:25, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
• Yes – Having read the above discussion, there are good points made from both sides. It is clear that some revamp of this section's wording is needed. However, I do not agree with the updated version, mostly because it lacks conciseness by being overly complex and long-winded. The purpose of this section should be to inform editors of the default 220px user preference, the parameters available for making manual adjustments, and advice that such parameters are not typically needed except in special circumstances (listing a few examples to illustrate). The longstanding wording seemed to arrive at the point in clearer fashion. I think more discussion is needed on the proposed changes. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:53, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. Image sizes are often the subject of dispute because certain editors want to impose very small images on articles they otherwise have no involvement in. For that reason, I think we should not make changes to this section unless there is clear consensus, and I hope we don't add anything that will make life difficult for editors who like to use larger image sizes, particularly in articles about art. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:00, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, one could argue that the section was already changed without clear consensus (diff). Nothing wrong with being bold, until it becomes obvious that consensus is in doubt. I don't suppose that changes your stance on the matter? --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:55, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

GoneIn60, it's hard to see what the consensus version was. I reverted to the version before the diff you cited, but was reverted. Changes pushed through without consensus are likely to be ignored or constantly disputed, so there's actually no point in doing this. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:51, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

• Probably not It kind of steamrollers over all the obvious exceptions. To name one that hasn't been mentioned: Infoboxes can sometimes, due to text or formatting, default to fairly wide boxes. A default-sized image can look terrible in those as it's far narrower than the space provided. I could support a statement that the default shouldn't be changed without reason to do so. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 02:18, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Actually, definitely not. If we're disallowing larger than, but the wording does not disallow smaller than, then we're setting a new, smaller image size. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:34, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose; as noted above, it's redundant with the extant text. One size does not fit all, and "where absolutely necessary" his hyperbolic.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:32, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose, per SarahSV; and I agree with this comment by Softlavender (see above) re desirable parameters for sizing images rather than 'one-size-is-good-for-you': "Appropriate image size can and should vary based on the image itself, the caption (and its length, and whether it fits felicitously or has [creates] unsightly widows), the size of the images or other boxes/structures (like infoboxes) above or below the image, the size and amount of text adjacent to the image, the relative importance of the image, the number of other images in the article/section, and so forth". //Jbeans (talk) 14:20, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
• Yes. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 19:43, 23 February 2016‎ (UTC)
• Yes, but .... I'm just going to quote Kaldari, who put it very succinctly: "Yes, but maybe not as strongly worded. I think it's important that we discourage changing the image size from the default, but also make an allowance for the many situations where it is actually warranted."  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  02:33, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Discussion section

Flyer22 Reborn, let me ask you... Based on #RfC: Should the guideline maintain the "As a general rule" wording or something similar?, it seems like your concern about the current wording [5] is the loss of this text:

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.

How would you feel about incorporating it this way [6]? EEng 04:00, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd be fine with that. Keeping this bit (the "In most cases" sentence) is also my concern. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:39, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

• Re the "images should not be set to a size larger" (above), I'm glad we were able to resolve your concern. You could have saved all the reverting and yelling and ANIing and RFPPing and RfCing if you'd just edited that little piece back in yourself, as I did just now, instead of reverting 200 lines of change because you don't like one line.
• Your second point is re the change (see your link above) from

In most cases, images should be right justified on pages, which is the default placement. If an exception to the general rule is warranted [etc etc] [Note: bolding added for ease of locating the two options]

to

By default, images appear against the right margin. If an exception is warranted, [etc etc]

Since this is the only concern you've expressed on that diff, I've reinstalled its other changes [7]. (And if there's something else you decide you don't like, please just edit it in place, or raise a concern here if you prefer, but don't don't mass-revert everything unless the whole edit is hopeless.)

However, I would propose that the new text above is more appropriate. Why should it be the "general rule" that images "should" be on the right "in most cases"? In practice almost all articles have all images on the right anyway, because of the default, but if editors of a given article want some, most, or all images on the left, for whatever reason, why should that be an "exception" which must be "warranted"? What's the big deal? Why does MOS care? Is, or was, there some plague of left-justified images that must be stopped before it leads to immorality, social collapse and worldwide famine?

The "should be right justified" language was inserted here [8], after the following not-very-exciting talkpage disucssion [9]

On the project page it is stated "As an example in its simplest form..." followed by example image markup that includes |right, despite that right hand placement is a default parameter ... Is this possibly an artifact from a time when images did not automatically default to the right, or am I missing something?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I have made the change to the page reflecting that right it is the default, highlighting that right placement is preferred in most places, and describing how to override.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems like "right side is the default" became "right side is preferred" as someone's afterthought. Unless someone can explain why the right side is preferred, and left placement must be a "warranted exception", I think we should just say

By default, images appear against the right margin. To place them on the left margin [etc etc] [Note: bolding added for ease of locating the two options]

Thoughts?

EEng

I was clear at WP:ANI about why I objected to your and BushelCandle's edits. It's not just about me objecting to those two aspects; it's about the fact that you two are steadily changing a guideline with longstanding rules that have worked well for years, and you are doing this without WP:Consensus. I object to all such edits, really. It was also made clear in that WP:ANI thread that others feel the same way about making changes to a guideline. To you, there is no consensus version in this case, but there has been for years. While I am aware that WP:Consensus can change, there is no consensus at all for the new wording. The WP:STATUSQUO essay exists for things like this. WP:Consensus is a policy people too often ignore. And even during the aforementioned RfC, you and BushelCandle are making changes. You two have made changes that have been disputed times before; the guideline has been the way it has been for sometime because what it stated before edits by you two has been shown to work well for years. Significant changes to Wikipedia guidelines or policies often significantly impact Wikipedia. And I'm not convinced that all these latest changes are for the best. The WP:RfC is clearly needed, as others feel similarly. On a side note, would you mind moving this discussion to the RfC Discussion section since that is where the latest discussion is, and since this section you've made addresses the RfC aspect?

As for your "right-justified" arguments, how are right-justified images not the best position for images in Wikipedia articles, especially for lead images? How is putting images on the left beneficial, other than the occasional "I want to alternate images" aspect some editors indulge in. That "I want to alternate images" aspect commonly results in WP:SANDWICHING issues, not just at the hands of newbies but also at the hands of our experienced editors; some of our experienced editors are not even aware of the WP:SANDWICHING guideline. You could argue that Wikipedia is simply used to right-justified images, just like society is used to right hand-justified materials since most people are right-handed, but placing images on the left sometimes seems to create awkward-looking text, especially with regard to a small section and how that aligns with a heading, whereas I haven't seen the same for right-justified images. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:09, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

The exact guideline that you just linked to gives one of the possible reasons for left-aligned images: "It is often preferable to place images of people so that they "look" toward the text. (Do not achieve this by reversing the image, which creates a false presentation e.g. by reversing the location of scars or other features.)". As for the rest of your arguments, you appear to be attempting an appeal to tradition, a logical fallacy. I think the discussion here makes clear that there is not currently a consensus for forbidding larger-than-default images, nor for forbidding left-side images, however much you might like there to be one. And EEng has already demolished the argument that the consensus once existed in the case of left-facing images, by looking at the actual discussion when that change was made. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:16, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

David Eppstein, for "left-facing" images, you mean of course "left-justified" images. EEng 04:18, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Er, yeah, the other left. I often have difficulty telling left from right without looking at my hands to see which one has a ring. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:53, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Your "appeal to tradition" argument is incorrect. Our definitions of consensus differ as well. If my appeal is anything, it's "If ain't broke, don't fix it." You, and others with your viewpoint, have failed to convince some of us that the longstanding rules are broken or need improvement. Those rules have been proven to work and be significantly beneficial for years. The proposals are just that -- proposals. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:30, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

In fact, the WP:SANDWICHING guideline mentions one of the issues I've seen with left-aligned images: "In a few web browsers, bulleted lists overlap with left-aligned images. It may be preferable to avoid placing a left-aligned image near lists." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:14, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

That's a good reason for not placing left-aligned images near bulleted lists. It's a very bad reason for instituting a more general ban on such alignment. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:17, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

It's not an argument for "instituting a more general ban on such alignment." You and EEng seem to take "As a general rule" or "In most cases" type of wordings as some type of "you can't do things that way" rule. It's not, just like it's not with regard to WP:Lead. It's guidance on best practice, and that exceptions to the standard may be justified. This a guideline, not a policy. Guidelines have more leeway, and people should forgo the general rule when it is validly warranted. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:30, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

As a general rule, guidelines of the form "as a general rule" are used as cudgels by editors to enforce the rules much more strictly than that wording would imply (e.g. by preventing passage of an article through GA until the rule is obeyed). And in fact you yourself have stated that you want this rule to be in place as a way to persuade other editors to fall in line with your preference for small images. So we should be very careful about including such wording, and only make such rules when the exceptions are indeed rare. In this case, I may be biased by mostly editing mathematical articles where the images are usually diagrams needing larger-than-default size to be legible, but I think the exceptions are not rare. And if you look at the discussion on whether we should keep the guidance to avoid larger-than-default images even "as a general rule", it seems clear to me that opinion is sufficiently divided (at least so far) that there is no consensus on any such general rule. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:42, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Nowhere did I state or imply that I want "this rule to be in place as a way to persuade other editors to fall in line with [my] preference for small images." I stated, "The new wording makes those of us who have to deal with such bad image formatting unable to sufficiently combat such bad image formatting. [...] The 'As a general rule' and 'In most cases, the default image size should be used' type of wordings helped for quite sometime in keeping unreasonable image size under control. [...] It seems that you and others are trying to appeal to all readers; that's not always possible, and Wikipedia commonly gives priority to the majority rather than the minority. For the minority, it commonly has alternative options. [...] I'm not stating that I prefer tiny images; like Mandruss noted, 'In many cases, the thumbnail is large enough and there is no need to click-thru.' I'm stating that there usually is not a good reason to bypass that default size or to have a huge image in the article. [...] The 'As a general rule' wording worked fine for this guideline, just like it works fine for the WP:Lead guideline despite editors who continue to try to get that guideline changed in the same disorganized fashion that you have changed this one. [...] I'm not stating any of this out of personal preference; I'm stating it because I have seen it be an issue for years (keep in mind that I have been with this site since 2007), with many editors fighting over image size. Once we point editors to the 'As a general rule' wording, the dispute usually settles down. [...] Certain editors here simply don't like rules and don't know how to adhere to them. They have a 'rules are meant to be broken' attitude, or they evoke WP:Ignore all rules for everything. They want our guidelines and even our policies to be loose with everything so that they can do what they want; I'm the exact opposite of that."

That is what I stated. I am not as strict with guidelines as you make me out to be, and that is clear by my recent comments on different guideline matters. Curly Turkey stated above, "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 [...]." I and others have echoed that sentiment. I have no problem at all forgoing a general rule when the forgoing is warranted. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:55, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Note: I moved the "Resuming discussion" section here per what I stated above about its location. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:59, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

• For the nth time, my edits are meant to improve the presentation without changing the meaning. Such an effort doesn't require excruciating prior discussion of where to indent and where to place bulletpoints. Such changes are almost impossible to discuss -- you just make a change so others can see what you mean, in loco.
• If, here or there, there's an inadvertent change of meaning, or you feel an earlier turn of the phrase should be retained, you can just undo or fix that edit.
• I do such editing in very small quanta, so it's easy to see that presentation, not substance, is being changed at each step -- each of which can be easily undone if needed. (In the case of the #Size section, material was imported from WP:Image use policy, so what you seem to think is new is actually just conformance to that policy.)
• You say,
  • "You, and others with your viewpoint, have failed to convince some of us that the longstanding rules are broken or need improvement." For the n+1th time, I'm not proposing changing the rules, just improved presentation.

• "The WP:RfC is clearly needed". No, it was completely unnecessary. If you had simply edited in your desired change, I doubt anyone would have objected. In the end I just did it for you (and would have done so sooner, except your objection was so vague I couldn't see where to insert the text).
• "And even during the aforementioned RfC, you and BushelCandle are making changes." Everyone doesn't have to stop because you've objected to one tiny bit of a large set of changes.
• "I'm not convinced that all these latest changes are for the best." I'm sure you're right: undoubtedly they're not all for the best, because I'm fallible. So undo/fix the ones that aren't for the best.

As to left-right (where I am suggesting an actual change) you ask, "how are right-justified images not the best position for images in Wikipedia articles, especially for lead images? How is putting images on the left beneficial"? I don't know, but I trust editors of individual articles to decide that for themselves. (I agree lead images should be on the right, like infoboxes are -- I'm certain some guideline somewhere says so.) As seen above, the idea that "most" images should be on the right is just something someone made up one day. MOS is grotesquely bloated, and if we don't need a rule, then we need to not have that rule.

Now I'd really like to hear what other editors think about the "most on the right issue". I've put the two options in bold above. EEng 04:18, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Whatever you meant, I mostly disagree with you. You don't just change presentation; you change the meaning in some cases as well. Otherwise, there would not be as much debate regarding your changes now; the debate clearly has not solely come from me. And my objecting to your changes is not just a matter of me objecting to those two aforementioned aspects; I already stated that. There is no need for us to keep repeating ourselves. Getting outside input is good in cases like this, and that's what I've done with the first RfC; from what I can see, it is absolutely needed. And I'll perhaps start one on the right-adjusted matter as well. The dispute regarding the "As a general rule" aspect should be resolved first, since it's clear by the RfC that people have different opinions on it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:27, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

• For the n+5th time, if the meaning changed here or there, just WP:SOFIXIT.
• No, the debate has come solely from you. When version 2B was installed live, there were 5 supports and 4 opposes:

• you,
• someone who bizarrely claimed "no one uses upright",
• someone who (equally bizarrely) thought upright is a "hack",
• someone who said he/she couldn't even tell what we were !voting on (and expressed puzzlement at the other oppose-er's idea that no one uses upright).

You're the only person still saying, "I'm don't like it ... There are problems ... I'm opposed" -- and you've pointed only to two little phrases you dislike, both of which have been changed to suit your preference. If your only continued objections are vague I-don't-like-its, there's nothing more to discuss. Have the last word now if you wish -- I'll be busy improving the presentation of the guidelines. EEng 17:51, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

EEng, repeating yourself does not make you correct. As the current state of the guideline edit history shows, as the RfC shows, and as the #Should we really be encouraging a hack? discussion shows, I am not the only one stating, "I don't like it ... There are problems ... I'm opposed." And it's exactly why Ymblanter full-protected the page after my and Moxy's requests, seen here and here. Although I'm certain that the guideline needs more than three days full protection, I thank you, Ymblanter. SlimVirgin tried to return the page to the WP:STATUSQUO, with a request that we work all of this out on the talk page first, but you (EEng) and BushelCandl couldn't wait. What we had was an unstable guideline; it was being changed day in and day out on editors' whims or preferences, with absolutely no consensus. The latest changes are not simply minor changes. And I don't want to go in and make significant changes to a longstanding guideline without consensus; I want to make sure that all of the significant changes are beneficial for Wikipedia and have consensus; that is the core of my disagreement with you on this matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:48, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

• The RfC is only about one small phrase you disputed, and reflects not at all on the rest of the changes.
• The preference for upright has been part of WP:Image use policy since at least 2012 (the recent changes here merely reflect that) so the question "Should we really be encouraging a hack?" is a nonstarter.
• "The latest changes are not simply minor changes" -- you keep saying that, but after repeated requests you have refused to give even one example. so stop whining about process and get out of the way while others continue to improve things.

EEng 23:40, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn: "Return to the WP:STATUSQUO" should not be seen as a long-term solution, lack of consensus in this or other RfCs here should not be interpreted as consensus for the status quo ante, and continually making more and more RfCs until everyone is tired of responding to the same questions over and over should not be used as a way of enforcing your preference for the status quo. Rather, when an RfC calls the question of whether there is consensus for a part of a guideline, and the results of the RfC demonstrate that there is no consensus, that part of the guideline should be ripped out. As for the page protection: I'm at a bit of a loss over why it was imposed after we seemed to have agreed to discuss the major changes, and after the edits on this MOS section had become minor copyedits and clarifications, but in any case it was clearly intended to promote discussion, not to close off the discussion and give you your way. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:14, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

EEng, other changes you've made are clearly disputed. You can keep making it about me, but it isn't. You always do this: Make significant changes to our guideline or policy pages without consensus, and that needs to stop. This is also clear at the WP:Image use policy page; one example is this edit by Redrose64, which reverted you and relayed, "rv all of today's changes - this is a *policy* doc, and changes should only be made after discussion." Like I stated, you always do this. I have various guidelines and policies on my watchlist, and I help improve some of them. I clearly have a different style than you do. And that style is never me being in the way.

David Eppstein, nowhere did I state or imply that "Return to the WP:STATUSQUO" should be seen as a long-term solution." Nowhere did I state or imply that I will continually make more and more RfCs "until everyone is tired of responding to the same questions over and over" and/or as a way of "enforcing [my] preference for the status quo." I've been explicitly clear about how I feel about people making changes to longstanding rules with no consensus or indication that such changes are improvements, edit warring over the rules, and creating unstable guidelines. You often take my comments and twist them. Perhaps what I've stated is not clear to you, but it's clear to others. So I disagree with you, per what I just stated to EEng. And there is no need to ping me to this talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:33, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I've yet to see a clear link to any policy that currently demands that "In most cases, images should be right justified on pages...".

Consequently unless and until ALL the users of the English Wikipedia are canvassed by a notice on every page (such as when we have fund-raising) I am vehemently opposed to such dictatorial wording that is unjustified by policy.

If this is a binary alternative, I much prefer By default, images appear against the right margin. If an exception is warranted... BushelCandle (talk) 08:09, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

It's not a policy, it's a Manual of Style, meant to provide a consistent style and approach to all pages on WP. Right-aligned images is one of those things that bore out from the MOS for images in the past. Keep in mind that MOS is not policy (since most MOS is about style and not content) but does carry weight for consistency. --MASEM (t) 23:45, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

• I hope the edits over at Wikipedia:Image use policy are not related to the editwar here. -- Moxy (talk) 21:10, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I imagine they're related, but they looked more like clarification of a technical issue (upright not working well at small pixel sizes) and less like attempts to unilaterally change the policy to me, so I'm not overly concerned with them. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:18, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

David Eppstein: Well, I reverted the additions to Image Use Policy, for reasons given in my edit summaries starting here [10]. If anything, we should be consolidating all this image-size-and-formatting stuff here at MOS/Images, and then eliminate the overlapping and conflicting stuff on that subject on the five other pages (I counted!) that talk about it -- and for sure new stuff like what I reverted at Image Use Policy -- should be added here, not on the five other pages, so as to contribute to that consolidation and centralize discussion.

Next thing I know I get a not-paying-attention admin restoring those changes, telling me to get consensus [11]! Huh??? EEng 01:02, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

The image use policy should only include things that are a matter of policy (e.g. images must be properly licensed), not a matter of stylistic guidance (e.g. what is the preferred way to set the size for small images), I agree. I guess that means we need to hold a discussion there as well, on how to achieve that? —David Eppstein (talk) 01:14, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Not sure what you're saying. I'm pretty sure that most or all of the WP:Image_use_policy#Displayed_image_size section grew up there as a sort of accident (probably growing out of the bit about uploading best-quality images, no need to upload separate versions for use as thumbs, software automatically scales everyting, etc.). Part of what I was doing in my recent set of changes here, at MOS/Images, was to start importing all that material here, with an eye toward consolidating formatting stuff here and eliminating it there, as described in my post just above here. To do that, I don't think anything needs to be discussed over there, except maybe at the end when everything there is now here, and a pro forma discussion might be held before deleting its copy of it. EEng 01:40, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• To comment on one of the original points @EEng: made above, while I can agree that right-aligned image as the MOS default likely fell out partially from right-aligned being the default option for image placement, there are two valid right to prefer right-aligned: they will not interfere with key left-aligned section headers, and that flow of text around a right-aligned image is generally less disruptive and easier to read (due to the consistent left border) than around left-aligned images. This doesn't mean right-aligned is the only allowance, and as you've pointed out there's plenty of reasons to use left-aligned (such as person-facing-in or for images against a long infobox). But in general if you are dropping an image into an article where there are no other images to clear, right-alignment is strongly suggested for best reading options. --MASEM (t) 23:52, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Exactly, Masem. Like I stated above, certain editors seem to take "As a general rule" or "In most cases" type of wordings as some type of "you can't do things that way" rule. It's not, just like it's not with regard to WP:Lead. It's guidance on best practice, and that exceptions to the standard may be justified. This a guideline, not a policy. Guidelines have more leeway, and people should forgo the general rule when it is validly warranted. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:36, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

This seems disingenuous to me. Guidelines are treated here more strongly than just general advice. For instance, the first rule for good articles is that you shall not pass unless you obey a selected set of MOS guidelines. Therefore, we should be careful only to include suggestions when it would not be reasonable for a good article to disobey them. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:04, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:Policies and guidelines currently states, "Although Wikipedia does not employ hard-and-fast rules, Wikipedia policy and guideline pages describe its principles and best-agreed practices. Policies explain and describe standards that all users should normally follow, while guidelines are meant to outline best practices for following those standards in specific contexts. Policies and guidelines should always be applied using reason and common sense."

That's how I treat our rules. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:34, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

The MOS part of our policy/guidelines have a fix of prescriptive and descriptive elements. Most of the prescriptive ones (that is, that should always be follow with very few exceptions) are regarding the small details, such as logical quotations, using non-breaking spaces between a number and its following measurement unit, and the like. The ones that relate to layout, appearance, etc. like image sizing and placement fall as descriptive ones, meant to prevent edit warring over a non-essential detail more than anything else. I have never seen a GA or FA failed because of going against the MOS's advice on image placement, though I have seen suggestions made by reviewers to improve the image layout. Consider our image advice falling into the "should/could" of the MoSCoW method, while things like punctuation are more "musts". --MASEM (t) 16:54, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• I disapprove of strong—even general mild—inhibitions against larger image sizing than the default, which in many contexts is too small to show important details. When I co-led the move to up the default size from the tiny 180px to 220px (I think it was in 2009), many editors voted for 240px (or more); but we erred on the conservative side. It would be better to word the guideline in terms of using the default unless there is a reason to depart from it. Tony (talk) 05:52, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Tony1, Might I suggest you register your opposition in the main !voting section? EEng 10:36, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes he should, though he will then no doubt receive some dismissive characterization from you! Johnbod (talk) 13:46, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't know why, since I agree with him. Anyway, I reserve my dismissive characterizations for those who endlessly complain vaguely, without ever specifying what it is they're complaining about. EEng 23:42, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

• What has happened here...why does the MOS deal so much with upright now? Editors will not encounter this much when they edit..nor is it explained in most help pages or in the wizard. Need much more of a talk before big changes. dreaming we think upright will be all over all of a sudden. Its a great idea,,but just not how it is--Moxy (talk) 11:58, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. There have been vast numbers of changes for which there is no consensus, and the discussion here has been taken by a couple of editors to a length that few can be bothered to follow. There may need to be a massive reversion at some point. Johnbod (talk) 13:46, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

This needs to be fix....the MOS doe not deal with what is going on. We should restore the size section to a version with real value....not some wish list. I suggest restoring the section to before the editwars. We need px values.....not more info on the upright that noone uses. Looks like the debate here has not helped the MOS -- Moxy (talk) 18:03, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

If we restore to the WP:STATUSQUO, EEng and/or BushelCandle will likely revert. Remember, SlimVirgin (SarahSV) already tried to restore the WP:STATUSQUO, and we saw what happened. Then we got the page full-protected, and EEng and BushelCandle went back to editing it as soon as that full protection wore off. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:35, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Best we restore till this is all worked-out....its clear there is a problem with the current text. it does not match anything else out there. Thus far we have two editors telling us what is best ..but its clear they are not sure themselves. Restore....not the communities fault they have a problem....we should not have to see it here...daily changes are simply not good.. -- Moxy (talk) 19:53, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

• As explained several times before by me, by David Eppstein, by BushelCandle, and others, the material re upright is imported from WP:Image use policy, which has expressed that preference, and the deprecation of px, for many years. No long discussion is needed to bring a guideline into conformance with policy.
• Beyond that, and excepting the two small phrases on which Flyer has opened RfC, these changes are intended to be straightforward copyedits and reorganization improving the presentation without changing what's being presented i.e. what the guideline actually recommends. Despite numerous requests (e.g. [12] -- just one of many) over two weeks, no example to the contrary has been offered -- no example of anything added, removed, or changed. Absent that, all this wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth and tearing out of hair is more than a bit hollow.

EEng 23:42, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually we dont just copy and paste from one to the other ..no point in regurgitating the same thing all over..guidelines are to help people with what they will encounter in everyday life. As of now it just repeats the policy...this does not guide anyone more then the policy does....big mistake. -- Moxy (talk) 02:36, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

• Moxy's comment fails to make a distinction between (1) what we must do (policy), (2) what we should do (guidelines), and (3) what we actually do. As EEng says, currently the use of upright is policy, despite the fact that actually it is seldom used. What I would prefer is to downgrade it from policy to guideline, which involves strengthening the language here but also weakening or removing the language about upright on the corresponding policy. The fact that many articles are badly formatted does not mean that we have to describe their poor formatting as our idea of best practices here. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:06, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

This sounds like a good idea....but as has been said before by many upright is simply not used...nor is it explained much in our help pages or other pages. Not having values here that editors will find makes the page less then useless. We have been making guidelines for 15 years...they are here to guide people...not make people run to a help desk asking WTF is upright....when all I see is |px= . So to be clear here having no px values is a mistake....I dont care if upright is there....just need to see info on " Thumbnail sizes". What is going to happen is the help desks when asked will simply link people to the "how to pages" over the guideline if the guideline does not cover the basics that people ask about.- Moxy (talk) 02:36, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I guess you overlooked that the help page to which you link (and permalinked here) also deprecates px in favor of upright:

Normally the size should be specified as a value relative to the user's preferred base size, using the upright parameter rather than pixel values.

(That page is a complete joke as a help page, BTW -- grotesquely prolix, and written with no understanding whatsoever of how to explain something to someone, and detailing options and syntax never, ever used -- but that's a different matter.) EEng 05:12, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Did not get the point of the post at all did you? Yes upright is fine as said above by me and others...what is needed is px values explained here...not some help page. We dont want people to get info like this - as you put it- from a "joke" help page. I see why there is little progress here . -- Moxy (talk) 07:11, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WP:PERTINENCE section

We need to work out the first paragraph of the WP:PERTINENCE section since unstable guidelines are never good. It is not a good thing for a guideline to have different wording from day to day, or even from week to week. EEng and BushelCandle took issue with the original wording of the guideline. Their changes started on February 15. I took issue with their changes and all three of us have been changing or nitpicking at the section since, mainly that first paragraph. This is the version of the section I prefer, per reasons explained in the edit history. This version is also closest to how the section originally was, but with significantly less words. And, BushelCandle, I've been clear that I prefer the "Images should be significantly and directly relevant to the article's topic" bit before the "and inform rather than decorate" bit; the reason why is because the section is about pertinence and encyclopedic nature, and I think it's better to note the "significantly and directly relevant to the article's topic" part before the "and inform rather than decorate" part. And yet you keep reversing that order. EEng originally changed that order, and supports it as well. But, yeah, I don't. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:21, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I think WhatamIdoing wrote a lot of that section (I know she wrote some of it), so maybe she has something to state about the recent changes made to it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:27, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Here's a suggestion:

Images should have significance and direct relevance to the article's topic, and they should inform rather than decorate. They have the ability to aid in a reader's understanding of the subject, and therefore are often considered an important part of an article. Editors are encouraged to locate better images and improve captions as opposed to simply removing a contested image from the article. In some situations, however, images may not be appropriate or necessary.

It adds a bit to your proposal, Flyer22, but I think this would flow a little better. Just my 2¢. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:50, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

GoneIn60, thanks for the proposal; I prefer your version. And the "may not be appropriate or necessary" part makes it clear why images may be excluded from an article. I think the "contested" bit is limiting, though, since an editor might remove an image that's not contested. So I'd prefer we drop "contested." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:56, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, I'll certainly endorse the suggestion of dropping contested. So now we have:

Images should have significance and direct relevance to the article's topic, and they should inform rather than decorate. They have the ability to aid in a reader's understanding of the subject, and therefore are often considered an important part of an article. Editors are encouraged to locate better images and improve captions as opposed to simply removing an image from the article. In some situations, however, images may not be appropriate or necessary.

The profitless recitation of the blatantly obvious, as if editors are morons, is the primary reason MOS is so grotesquely bloated. Everyone not blind from birth knows, from personal experience, that images "have the ability to aid in a reader's understanding of the subject"‍—‌in fact even the blind know it, because they've been told. Then comes the halfhearted statement that images "are often considered an important part of an article". Really? They're not even often important, but often considered important? We can't just say straight out that they are often important, or even are important, but have to treat it as a POV opinion that maybe only some people agree with? The whole first sentence adds zero in terms of how to select or use images.

And then we have, "Editors are encouraged to locate better images and improve captions as opposed to simply removing an image from the article." OK, yeah, so let's say an image is being removed ("from the article"‍—‌where else would they be removed from? My God, the verbal diarrhea!) because it's one of the low-quality images that this very guideline says, further down, not to use ("​​dark or blurry; showing the subject too small, hidden in clutter, or ambiguous"), or maybe it's decorative but not informative. Fine. Does it really help to "encourage" editors to find a replacement image? Do we really think there's someone who doesn't realize that on his own, but will somehow remember, "Oh, yeah, MOS/IMAGES encourages me to find a better image rather than just removing this blurry one", and then go do that? It doesn't even say that an editor ought or must do this, but is just an exhortation aimed at those who, if they weren't going to do it on their own, aren't going to do it because MOS "encourages" them to. It's like that stupid sign on the bus that says, "Please give up your seat for an elderly or handicapped person who needs one"‍—‌as if someone who isn't, on his own, inclined to give a crippled old lady his seat is gonna do it because a sign says to.

This should simply read:

Images should have significance and direct relevance to the article's topic, and should inform rather than decorate. For some topics, images may be unnecessary, or appropriate images unavailable.

I'm not even sure about the second sentence, because MOS is supposed to be about how to select and use images if they're going to be in there, not the FA requirements. Probably it should just read:

Images should have significance and direct relevance to the article's topic, and should inform rather than decorate.

All the useful guidance, in 1/4 the words. And one more thing... BushelCandle's right about the order of points, which is much stronger as:

Images should inform rather than decorate, and have significance and direct relevance to the article's topic.

This puts the peripheral before the central, and has better rhythm too. BTW, what's the difference between "significance" and "direct relevance" and just plain "relevance"? EEng 03:11, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I would hope that we can all agree that "It is not a good thing for a guideline to have different wording from day to day, or even from week to week". I'm also glad to hear you, Flyer22 Reborn, hint that less fluffy words can be better.

I've taken your point that this particular subsection 1.1 has, for a long time, had the heading of Pertinence and encyclopedic nature. Consequently I've moved the "inform rather than decorate" phrase out of it entirely and into the, formerly completely empty, main 1. section of Choosing images so that we don't have to fight over phrase order any more. I've also shortened by an eensy-weensy bit and and removed a rather imprecise, glossed internal link to #Images for the lead. I would hope that you can be taken at your word and discuss any future changes/reversions that you might have in advance. BushelCandle (talk) 20:26, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I take issue with the 'they should inform rather than decorate'. Images should not in general say anything more than the text unless they are backed up by secondary sources. The pertinence section should just concentrate on pertinence. Dmcq (talk) 21:17, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

BushelCandle, and I reverted it; I disagree with the separation; it does not help matters, and the wording can be easily overlooked by those who will opt to click on the "Choosing images" heading instead of the "Pertinence and encyclopedic nature" heading from the table of contents. I also reverted again. As for you agreeing with me that "It is not a good thing for a guideline to have different wording from day to day, or even from week to week.," then why do you so often change this guideline?

EEng, whether we include the original "aid in a reader's understanding of the subject" part or GoneIn60's alteration of it, it should be there because it explains why images are "often considered an important part of an article." It also helps to drive home the point that images should inform rather than simply decorate. If everyone understood that images are usually meant to aid in a reader's understanding of the subject, so many editors, especially the newbies, wouldn't add images simply for decoration, resulting in an article bloated with images and WP:SANDWICHING issues. There would be no Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images or Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria#Policy, which states in its "Contextual significance" section, "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Stating things plainly is not necessarily treating editors like morons, especially as far as the inexperienced editors go; the guidelines are mainly meant for those inexperienced editors. Significantly experienced editors already know the rules (though not all of them since there are so many). I agree with simply stating "often important" instead of "often considered important," and I don't think GoneIn60 meant anything by adding "considered"; it is a minor semantics issue. As for the "Editors are encouraged to locate better images and improve captions as opposed to simply removing an image from the article." line, we can obviously change that to the following: "Because of this, it is commonly preferable to locate better images and improve captions than remove an image from the article." or use the previous wording of "so finding good images (and giving them good captions) is often preferable to simple removal." This is another minor semantics issue. As for including any mention of a replacement image aspect, the reason I think we should retain that aspect is because there have been many cases where an editor simply removes an image and doesn't think to replace it, especially in the case of newbie editors or otherwise less experienced editors, with enough of them not even being aware of WP:Commons; I have seen that happen countless times, including drive-by removals. And it's clear various others have as well, which is why that aspect was added to the guideline and retained for years. So I don't agree with your significantly reduced proposal above. As for putting "Should inform rather than decorate" before "Images should have significance and direct relevance to the article's topic," you were the first one to change the order; BushelCandle was simply following your lead, as he often does. I disagree with that order, per what I stated above.

Dmcq, I disagree. Images should usually inform; they should not be solely decorative; that type of thing has caused many issues at articles, including the WP:Non free type. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:32, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

What problems have been caused by images that are solely decorative and yet are pertinent to an article? And how does one tell whether something is decorative or not if they cannot say anything more than is said by the text? Have you got some specific example in mind? Dmcq (talk) 22:02, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I still don't like this passage - was there ever a discussion about this and, if so, where may it be found? BushelCandle (talk) 22:08, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Dmcq, what problems? I stated above, "If everyone understood that images are usually meant to aid in a reader's understanding of the subject, so many editors, especially the newbies, wouldn't add images simply for decoration, resulting in an article bloated with images and WP:SANDWICHING issues. There would be no Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images or Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria#Policy, which states in its 'Contextual significance' section, 'Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.'" In addition to WP:Non-free issues, having a bunch of useless images in articles creates text issues (such as people placing an image in the middle of a paragraph, creating WP:SANDWICHING problems, and placing many images in a stub article); there's also the WP:Gallery issue, where many editors create galleries just for the heck of it. But notice that WP:Gallery states, "[...] The use of a gallery section may be appropriate in some Wikipedia articles if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images. The images in the gallery collectively must have encyclopedic value and add to the reader's understanding of the subject. [...] Wikipedia is not an image repository. A gallery is not a tool to shoehorn images into an article, and a gallery consisting of an indiscriminate collection of images of the article subject should generally either be improved in accordance with the above paragraph or moved to Wikimedia Commons."

BushelCandle, what don't you like about the passage? Furthermore, as you know, that section does not look like that anymore. It looks like this at the moment. I can compromise by agreeing to put "Should inform rather than decorate" before "Images should have significance and direct relevance to the article's topic," but I think that the section should be the way it is now, except that we should add GoneIn60's wording of "In some situations, however, images may not be appropriate or necessary." in place of "In some cases, however, images may not be needed." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:30, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I am asking that we work out wording and agree to it here on the talk page first before changing that paragraph of the section again. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:35, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I also don't mind (much) changing "should inform" to "should usually inform" or "should generally inform." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:01, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I really don't see why it is in at all. The reason you gave was something to do with a worry that someone might stick in a non-free image - that can be deal with especially in the section about fair use of non-free images rather than about pertinence. Mixing things is very often a bad idea and especially if it is unnecessary. As it says in WP:POLICY "Be as concise as possible—but no more concise." and "Maintain scope and avoid redundancy". And you still haven't specified what 'inform' means in this context, it looks like it is too easy to abuse to start removing images which are helpful but do not give any information which isn't in the text - which means a very large proportion of the images. Dmcq (talk) 00:39, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Dmcq, I agree to disagree then because it is important to me that we note that images "should [usually] inform rather than decorate"; I've already stated why above, and the reason was not simply about the non-free issue aspect. And as for editors removing images that are helpful, the "Images should be significantly and directly relevant to the article's topic, and [usually] inform rather than decorate." wording should stop that. So should the "so finding good images (and giving them good captions) is often preferable to simple removal." wording, or something similar. If the image is helpful in some way, that is because it is usually informative. The only benefit of a decorative image is if it's the lead image, since those images automatically make articles more welcoming, usually at least. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:29, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I understand the use of decorative images in some cases, such as different free images in a celebrity's article, which may show the celebrity with a different hair style, at a noticeably different age, or in some other different fashion. So I struck through "only" in my "05:29, 22 February 2016 (UTC)" post above. But even those images usually inform in one way or another, especially in the case of age or style, and also via their captions. And keep in mind that this is a guideline, not a policy, and we don't have to give the impression that decorative images are never allowed; that's why I suggested we add "usually" or something similar. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:53, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

• BushelCandle: Discussion or no, the guideline has read the way it does for years and, unless you really feel this is life-or-death, that equals a de facto consensus. We should work from what's there now.
• Dmcq: How would you feel about dropping the "inform" bit and just saying, "Images should not be primarily decorative"?
• Flyer22 Reborn:

• "aid in a reader's understanding of the subject"... should be there because it explains why images are "often considered an important part of an article" That's no argument, since "images... are often considered an important part of the article" has no value either, as already explained in my prior post.
• "aid in a reader's understanding of the subject"... also helps to drive home the point that images should inform rather than simply decorate No, telling editors that images can inform in no way tells them that they shouldn't, in other instances, be used decoratively.
• If everyone understood that images are usually meant to aid in a reader's understanding of the subject... there would be no... Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria#Policy, which states [etc etc]" No, NFCC gives special requirements for a special class of images, and has nothing to do with appropriate use of images in general.
• Stating things plainly is not necessarily treating editors like morons, especially as far as the inexperienced editors go Stating plainly things that need stating is fine, but belaboring (plainly or not) things obvious to absolutely everyone (inexperienced or not) squanders our limited claim on editors' attention.
• As for including any mention of a replacement image aspect, the reason I think we should retain that aspect is because there have been many cases where an editor simply removes an image and doesn't think to replace it, especially in the case of newbie editors or otherwise less experienced editors, with enough of them not even being aware of WP:Commons; I have seen that happen countless times, including drive-by removals. You said that before and you may even be right. But I've explained why I think exhortations here to find replacements won't help, and you haven't answered that.

• What would you say to getting other editors' opinions about a choice between the following two? But please, no RfC yet -- let's see what the usual suspects can work out here first.

(A) Images should have significance and direct relevance to the topic, and not be primarily decorative. Images can benefit an article greatly, so finding good ones (and giving them good captions) is preferable to simply removing poor or inappropriate ones. Images can benefit articles greatly, so finding good replacements is encouraged when removing poor and inappropriate ones. In some articles, however, images may not be needed.

(B) Images should have significance and direct relevance to the topic, and not be primarily decorative. They can benefit articles greatly, but some articles may not need them.

EEng 04:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

You stated that my argument that the "aid in a reader's understanding of the subject" aspect should be there because it explains why images are "often considered an important part of an article" is no argument; I disagree. And since I'd rather not repeat why I disagree, I won't repeat.

You objected to my "also helps to drive home the point that images should inform rather than simply decorate" point. I disagree.

You stated, "No, NFCC gives special requirements for a special class of images, and has nothing to do with appropriate use of images in general." I made the argument that editors commonly do not understand that images should usually inform rather than decorate. I noted that this aspect indeed ties into NFCC. And it does since many "fails NFCC" discussions have concerned editors using images to decorate rather than enhance a reader's understanding of the subject. Just ask Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, who commonly deals with "fails NFCC" issues. So I can't agree that NFCC has nothing to do with the "inform rather than decorate" aspect.

We disagree on the "obvious" argument; why is above, so I won't repeat.

As for retaining the "removing images" aspect, we clearly disagree on that as well. You stated that you "think exhortations here to find replacements won't help, and [I] haven't answered that." I'm not sure what you mean, but I've clearly noted why I think we should retain that aspect, and you see where I'm coming from on that. I think including it helps and won't hurt anything.

As for your latest proposals, it's clear that I'd prefer (A). But I still dislike any type of "Images can benefit an article greatly" wording without noting why this is the case. The "it's obvious why images can benefit an article" aspect is one we disagree on, per above. Furthermore, many of our policies and guideline state the obvious anyway (which you've indicated above by stating "MOS is so grotesquely bloated"), and I don't see that as a bad thing. Clarity is usually better than ambiguity. And I'd rather the "simply removing poor or inappropriate ones" wording be "simply removing images"...since an editor might not remove an image because it's poor or inappropriate; they might remove it because they don't like it; in some of these cases, editors don't take the time to look for a replacement image that they might like. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:29, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

None of your arguments makes any sense, for the reasons bulleted in my prior post, and you repeating "I disagree" over and over, without explaining why you disagree, doesn't change that. You could save even more time (yours in writing, and everyone else's in reading) by just not responding at all, since that's effectively what you're doing anyway, just in 3000 bytes instead of zero. EEng 06:18, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

If you thought none of my arguments made any sense, you would not have clearly understood my point regarding the "removing images" aspect. Either way, just because my arguments do not make sense to you does not mean they make no sense. When it comes to MOS issues, hardly anyone's arguments make sense to you because you always think that you are right; really, others on this very talk page have stated essentially the same to you. And I've seen it enough at the WP:Manual of Style talk page. I stated "I disagree" in cases where it was clear that I shouldn't be repeating myself, and to save this section from becoming WP:Too long; didn't read read as discussions usually become exactly that when you are involved. Your assertion that that NFCC has nothing to do with the "inform rather than decorate" aspect makes no sense to me; neither do some of your other arguments, but the difference between us is that I usually don't need to brush an editor's arguments off as "nonsense" to feel victorious in a debate. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:38, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Making the prescriptive parts of a policy or guideline longer normally makes them less clear. Explanations and examples are what can make something clearer. That is why the policy on policies and guidelines says to make them as concise as possible but not more concise. Extra verbiage just leads to disputes. Also I really would like to see a couple of examples of problems which have sparked this dispute. You may feel that saying images should not be primarily decorative is something good to say - but have you an example of where people have put in images that would be eliminated by this and not something else and where discussion was needed to remove the images. Policies and guidelines should be based on actual practice and need. Dmcq (talk) 14:34, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

To put things in a historical light, here's the most recent content discussion about that section: 17 July 2010. This lead to a major expansion, which held up for most of a year until the section was restructured in this edit. Aside from minor cosmetic changes, that's the text this project page has held onto for over 4 years. Thought I would provide this as a way to put the text's evolution in perspective.

Also in regards to my proposal above, it was just a slight modification of the current wording. If you're in the camp that believes the current paragraph is already bloated with excess verbiage, then obviously you weren't going to agree with (or like) that particular proposal. Having heard the arguments above, I think there's a reasonable desire from both camps to shorten and clarify the section with less verbiage. There's no need to tear into other fellow editors in the process; doing so may only prolong efforts at reaching a compromise. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:11, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

You talk about a major expansion but the old version of the guideline and a version from not so long ago that I looked at say nothing about inform or decorate anywhere in them, this is what it had in the first paragraph of the pertinence section what you pointed at

"Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly and directly related to the article's topic. Because the Wikipedia project is in a position to offer multimedia learning to its audience, images are an important part of any article's presentation. Effort should therefore be made to improve quality and choice of images or captions, rather than deleting them—especially on pages which lack visuals."

There was talk there about not just being decorative - but it didn't as far as I can see make it into the actual guideline. And why does no-one point to an actual example? Dmcq (talk) 18:45, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Dmcq, for the record, I was only providing evidence of major changes to that paragraph over the past 5 years. I was ignoring the recent flurry of edits made over the past month. You are right that decorative was not in the original wording. If you want an explanation of why it was inserted, then the person you should be asking is BushelCandle (diff). Personally, I don't see an issue with using that term the way that EEng suggests in the (A) and (B) examples above stating "primarily decorative". That leaves some room open for interpretation, meaning some amount of decoration is tolerated. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:40, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

BushelCandle added the decorative part after I made it clear that using images solely for decoration can be a problem. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:38, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

You did not make it clear that decorative images were bad for the encyclopaedia. You said that newbies sometimes put in images which fell foul of non-free images needing to have a good justification. That is a different problem entirely and should be covered as such. The etc is not explanatory. I still would really really really like to see an example of the problem which isn't covered already by something else like the non-free images. What is the %$£! problem with somebody producing an example? Dmcq (talk) 14:28, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

And that is where we disagree, because I believe that I was very clear above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:42, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I am unable to read your mind without you providing some indication of what your thoughts are. I am unable to work out for myself what the problem might if there are no examples of a problem. Your word that you think there is a problem is not enough, I must dismiss your changes as unjustified. Dmcq (talk) 00:40, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Opinions solicited

Could the usual suspects who hang out here opine on (A) versus (B) in bold above? EEng 06:18, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

• How about just "Images should have significance and direct relevance to the topic," Dmcq (talk) 14:36, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I do think the not-just-decorative point is valuable. EEng 19:47, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

If it is valuable then can you point me to an example where it would make a difference? And if it would make a difference does it reflect current practice in that the decorative image was removed? Changing the guideline if it is not current practice and no evidence can bbe shown of where it would make a difference is problematic as in general they are supposed to reflect best practice - at least that's what it says at WP:POLICY. Changes to practice by dictat requires a bit more justification. Dmcq (talk) 22:53, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment – The second sentence in (A) lacks coherency. So we should find good images and give them good captions but allow the poor and inappropriate ones to remain? A better way of phrasing that:

"They can benefit articles greatly, so finding good replacements is encouraged when removing poor and inappropriate ones."

I would go further and suggest we replace "They can benefit articles greatly" with "They can provide encyclopedic value". The latter directly ties into the section's title and defines what kind of benefit we're talking about. I disagree with the proposal in (B) to remove the second sentence; it should remain in some form. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:38, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I've integrated your suggested change into (A), with a slight wording change. I have to say I'm not keen on the change to "can provide encyclopedic value" -- too wishy-washy. I mean, good images really can make a big difference. Can you state your !vote for (B) more prominently? EEng 19:45, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm fine with leaving (A) the way it is now. While I think "can benefit articles greatly" sounds a bit overdone with possibly some ambiguity surrounding the term benefit, I can live with it.

For clarity:

Support (A)

Oppose (B)

For reasons stated above. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:44, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, how about "improve articles greatly"? EEng 22:25, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps an improvement, but it still sounds a bit peacockish. Honestly, I'm fine with the proposal at this point. There's not enough wrong with that part to justify a change. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:41, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

When it comes to the usual suspects weighing in on this, there is clearly only us thus far: GoneIn60, Dmcq, BushelCandle, EEng and myself. Others watching this talk page have yet to show interest weighing in on this. So either we work this out, or we start that RfC EEng dreads. I commented above on the proposals. I was clear that I am not satisfied with either, but prefer (A) over (B). I reiterate that I do not like the "Images can benefit an article greatly" wording since it is ambiguous and doesn't tell us a thing about why images can greatly benefit an article. I disagree with EEng that we shouldn't retain the "Because of their ability to aid a reader's understanding of the subject, they are commonly an important part of an article" wording or similar because he views the matter as obvious/common sense. If we are going to state "Images can benefit an article greatly," then we should be making it explicitly clear why that is. I reiterate that I'd rather the "simply removing poor or inappropriate ones" wording be changed to "simply removing images"...since an editor might not remove an image because it's poor or inappropriate; they might remove it because they don't like it; in some of these cases, editors don't take the time to look for a replacement image that they might like. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:38, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

(A) is clearly better than (B); while EEng doesn't need to be told some of these things, there are certainly trigger-happy editors that need to be reminded that WP:PRESERVE is a policy, and that the undo button is not the best response to an imperfect caption or the choice of a less-than-Featured-quality image.

But mostly I think this dispute is a case of straining at gnats. WP:Nobody reads the directions, so the details of which phrase to put first, or whether to use this word or that word – they really don't matter. With the exception of EEng's recent proposal to omit information that he doesn't need (but which my experience shows some other editors unfortunately do), you're fighting over changes that will have no practical effect on what editors do. As a path forward, if "just quit wasting your time" isn't going to work for you, then you might talk about concrete examples of how editors might apply the text, and what you would like them to do differently, and how you could change the text so that, two years from now, a tiny percentage of them will do what the directions say. If you conclude that you don't want them to do something different, then leave it alone. When m:The Wrong Version isn't wrong enough to have a practical effect on what editors do, your time will be better spent on other work. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:59, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

(A); agree with WhatamIdoing. The recent extravaganza of gnat-straining has clearly driven everyone else away until the current editors find somwhere else to play. This section (here) is a fine example of why. Johnbod (talk) 14:05, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

This section? Try this entire page! Well said. It does seem like a lot of unnecessary attention to perfect an already solid guideline. Looking back, it doesn't appear there was ever any evidence presented to show why a change was needed. Was the current phrasing causing confusion? If so, is it clearly having a major impact? Seems more theoretical at this point. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:42, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

• Prefer (B), but OK with (A). I'm happy as long as we're leaving out the ridiculous bit explaining why images are good things. EEng 15:17, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

For the record, I also agree with WhatamIdoing. And I think Johnbod knows that I'd rather not be having all these debates with BushelCandle and EEng, but they are the ones constantly changing the guideline. My latest edits to the guideline were mainly because I object to their changes, especially their changes to the WP:PERTINENCE section, and I was attempting to keep that section closer to the original wording...for reasons I've already noted. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:42, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

For the record, we've been editing the guideline to bring it into line with superseding policy and reduce bloat‍—‌the latter being a big part of the reason, as Whatamidoing observer, nobody reads guidelines. As already noted, your reasons are completely illogical, such as citing something in NFCC as if it has something to do with images in general. EEng 21:31, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Again, if my reasons were completely illogical, you would not have clearly understood my point regarding the "removing images" aspect. If my reasons were completely illogical, WhatamIdoing would not have stated, "(A) is clearly better than (B); while EEng doesn't need to be told some of these things, there are certainly trigger-happy editors that need to be reminded that WP:PRESERVE is a policy, and that the undo button is not the best response to an imperfect caption or the choice of a less-than-Featured-quality image. and "EEng's recent proposal to omit information that he doesn't need (but which my experience shows some other editors unfortunately do)." Unlike WhatamIdoing, I see that you clearly need to be told these things. And WP:NFCC has much to do with editors using images purely for decoration instead of for educational value/to enhance a reader's understanding of the topic, as many such discussions have shown. I also pointed to WP:NFCI. You have not simply been making minor changes to this guideline, and even the minor changes are ones you can't seem to let go. Like WhatamIdoing essentially stated: If it ain't broke, don't fix it. And I've stated similarly to you before. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:51, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it" is the lazy person's way of saying, "Since it's not a total mess, why bother?" Again, your reasons are completely illogical even if I'm able to ascertain what you're trying to do with your tortured, fractured thinking. Can you quit with the bold? It's really annoying. EEng 22:06, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Repeating "your reasons are completely illogical" does not make it so; you are wrong, and others see it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:09, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Let's say that's true. That still leaves "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" being the excuse of the lazy, and all that bolding. EEng 22:20, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Then we disagree on that phrase as well because I use it to mean "if a system or method works well there is no reason to change it." At Wikipedia, if changing a rule truly helps (such as editing a guideline to bring it into line with superseding policy), I am likely to be for it; if changing a rule is more so about what the editor prefers, then no. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:03, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Honestly, this is too easy. Don't you ever give up? That's how it's supposed to be used, but in the hands of the lazy it's a chant of complacency. What about the bolding? BTW, there's something I've been meaning to ask you: do you ever write any content, or do you just revert stuff? EEng 23:24, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

"Don't you ever give up?" is essentially what others have asked you when it comes to your repeated changes to guidelines and policies against objections, and when it comes to your juvenile, disparaging remarks. This guideline was doing just fine without you, and can continue to do just fine without you. As for "do [I] ever write any content?", that you even have to ask me that shows that you aren't very familiar with me as an editor. My work speaks for itself, and a simple perusal of the top of my user page or talk page can easily point to what work I've done at this site. The fact that I WP:Patrol more so these days doesn't negate the work I've done. But if you must know what articles I'm mainly focusing on these days, it's the Vagina and Human brain articles (the former will have reached GA status later this year, and the latter is taking longer). How about you? I've certainly been wondering if all you do is tamper with policies and guidelines, given your contribution history. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:22, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I can certainly understand your considering adding 2/3 of Vagina worth mentioning among your achievements. As for myself, see User:EEng#dyk for a short sample. EEng 04:49, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Your "04:49, 25 February 2016 (UTC)" reply is as empty as the rest of your replies. But it, and especially you trying to prove your worth to me by pointing to your DYKs, further shows what I mean about your juvenile behavior. Here's a tip, though: Instead of DYKs, try GAs and FAs. I have significant experience with all three, and DYKs are not likely to impress me. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:53, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Jeesh, your really are too easy. As usual you miss the point. I don't expect anyone to be impressed or pleased with the fact of DYKs, nor would I expect you have an appreciation of anything there. I supplied the link for the benefit of others with more refined tastes. Good work on Vagina, though! EEng 14:58, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Replying to juvenile remarks with the respect they deserve is not being "too easy." We all know you love to WP:Bait and disparage. And now you've met an editor who can dish it out right back at you...without being as crass as you are. If that is being too easy to bait, then I accept. Someone should let an editor who thinks that working on such an important biological and medical article as Vagina is having less refined tastes because of their "Oooh, genitals. *Snickers* I'm so immature." mindset know that he is an editor who is being ridiculous. Someone should let an editor who thinks that any of the DYKs he pointed to are considered as important as, or more important than, an article such as Vagina or Human brain is an editor who is being ridiculous. I am a WP:Med, WP:Anatomy and WP:SEX editor. We work on such important articles, including the ones that juvenile editors snicker over. There are various articles I can point to that show off my work, including my GAs and FAs. There are a number of medical editors I can ping to vouch for me. But I see no need to brag or try to prove my worth to you or anyone else on this talk page. You started this "Do you even do anything of worth besides reverting (that is, if reverting vandalism and other problematic edits is even of worth)?" side discussion. If you can't handle it, or think you should get the last word on it, then this is why you should think twice before disparaging any and everyone who disagrees with you. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:14, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Lest anyone be misled, I never said anything like, "Do you even do anything of worth beside reverting (that is, if reverting vandalism and other problematic edits is even of worth)?" You still miss the point, which has nothing to do with articles' "importance", nor the doubtful achievements of DYK, GA, or FA. As for, "And now you've met an editor who can dish it out right back at you", see Dunning-Kruger effect. Please do be my guest and have the last word now. (I'm putting this interlude in < small> to help spare others diaphragm cramps from laughing.) EEng 22:14, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

It's clear to anyone with a brain what you meant by "BTW, there's something I've been meaning to ask you: do you ever write any content, or do you just revert stuff?" and "I supplied the link for the benefit of others with more refined tastes. Good work on Vagina, though!" That you think I or others cannot decipher what you meant, and that you have the gall to imply that I or others "just don't get it" by correctly assessing what you meant, shows how out of touch you are with your snark and your need to disparage. It also speaks to your ego; you know, the way your "brilliance" just outshines any intelligence the rest of us dare have. As for placing this sideshow in "small," hatting it would be much better. No need for your foolishness to be on full display. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:17, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Can you live with B? If so, then there's really no need to bother with this side conversation. You can just make the change, and then move on to another project. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:52, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Great suggestion. Done. EEng 12:30, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

And I reverted; I see no consensus for it, and I was clear that I was not satisfied with the proposal. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:22, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, I'm happy with (A) too, so I've installed that. EEng 04:49, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but you won't be getting the last word on this. It is not EEng's way (his proposals) or the highway. If you want that dreaded RfC, I can surely make it happen. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:53, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

And let's be very clear here: No one was especially pleased with your proposals. They (me included) stated that option A is better than Option B. You gave us two options, and acted like we are only supposed to choose from those two options, since, from your viewpoint, GoneIn60's proposal is some horrible monstrosity and the current wording is for idiots. And even with overwhelming support for option A over option B, you inserted option B. Yes, I know that WhatamIdoing stated, "You can just make the change, and then move on to another project." But she wants this debate to end. So do I. So does everyone who has participated in this discussion so far. There is even support for restoring the section to the WP:STATUSQUO. Clearly, the WP:STATUSQUO would be worse for you, given how much you hated that previous version. I tried compromising with you on that section, which is why I put up with the back and forth editing of it. That was not enough for you. Things seemingly have to be your way. And since that's the case, this debate continues. That I am tired of all this nitpicking and fighting doesn't mean that I'm just going to agree with what you want and leave it at that. If you can't leave this alone and walk away, this mess of a dispute continues. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:22, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Ooooh, "I can make it happen" -- ooooh! You're so powerful and capable! You can make RfCs happen! Yes, by all means let's have another of your RfCs, this time on whether editors need to be told that "Because of their ability to aid a reader's understanding of the subject, they are commonly an important part of an article." EEng 14:58, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Whether we go with this, this, or the WP:STATUSQUO, we won't be going with your unnecessary changes. Accept it and move on. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:14, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

As far as I can see the long term WP:STATUSQUO till the fast back and forth editing and the load of talk above was:

"Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly and directly related to the article's topic. Because the Wikipedia project is in a position to offer multimedia learning to its audience, images are an important part of any article's presentation. Effort should therefore be made to improve quality and choice of images or captions in articles rather than favoring their removal, especially on pages which have few visuals."

Yes I'd be happy with that and I can't see the point of the changes - in fact they seem to be verging on we want no yous steenkin images. Saying that non-free images should always have a strong justification does not mean that all images need to have a strong justification. Dmcq (talk) 16:26, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Dmcq. It might be best to revert to that version until we can get a clear consensus on the exact wording. Unfortunately, having to agree on every verb, noun, article, etc. is what this has come to. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:39, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Dmcq, you could restore the section to the WP:STATUSQUO, and I'd accept that. But it'd simply be reverted by BushelCandle (who thinks it's acceptable to sit out discussion and edit war his preference into the guideline, especially since he knows EEng will come to the tag-team rescue), or by EEng. While the RfC below takes place, it would be best if SlimVirgin or some other administrator restored the section to the status quo and full-protected the page for a few weeks. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:21, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Which version to go with?

This WP:RfC concerns how much detail to include in the first paragraph of the WP:PERTINENCE section of the WP:Manual of Style/Images guideline. Some editors feel that more is better for clarity and precision, especially for newbie or otherwise less inexperienced editors; other editors feel that more is not necessary, especially if it has the effect of underestimating our editors' intelligence. There is also sentiment that retaining the WP:STATUSQUO version is best. For those reading this RfC from the RfC page or their user talk page (via an alert), see the Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images#WP:PERTINENCE section and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images#Opinions solicited subsections for more detail. The below proposals are from those sections, with the last two being subsequent edits made to the guideline page. Feel free to support more than one proposal. I will alert Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style and WP:Village pump (policy) to this discussion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:21, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Alerted here and here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:41, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

• Another RfC-for-everything RfC, with five (5!) versions for editors to compare word for word. In fact, one of them ("Third proposal") stupidly regurgitates strikeouts and insertions of no consequence anymore! How clear and useful this all is! EEng 21:43, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Yep, another one, as promised. And as for usefulness, it's already been established that what you consider useful conflicts with what others consider useful. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:17, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

First proposal: STATUSQUO

Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly and directly related to the article's topic. Because the Wikipedia project is in a position to offer multimedia learning to its audience, images are an important part of any article's presentation. Effort should therefore be made to improve quality and choice of images or captions in articles rather than favoring their removal, especially on pages that have few visuals.

In this case, the "primarily meant to inform readers" bit was in the second paragraph of the guideline. Click on this link for the status quo.

• Support. I support the "more is better" options, for reasons I've noted above. I do not believe that explaining things clearly, giving solid reasons for a matter, is necessarily treating our editors like idiots. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:41, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
• Support. I don't like the explicit injunction against 'decorative' in the other ones. And I don't know what 'informative' is supposed to mean if a free image is not supposed to say anything more than the text. Dmcq (talk) 23:58, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
• Support mostly Drafted a merged replacement, option 6. This needs more concision (the below ones attempt this, but they all lose important points, not just excess verbiage). This also needs the "rather than decorate" material from proposal 2; this point actually is important. I do not believe anything in here is treating our readers or editors like idiots. This is a normal, explanatory intro, and being this clear about it will forestall a lot of pointless dispute and WP:GAMING. It can just be done a little more succinctly. (BTW, we had to take a similar approach at MOS:ICONS, and the more "this is why" is got, the fewer recurrent disputes we had (and the faster the ones with legitimate points were resolved.)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:25, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

  One obvious specific concision fix: "Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly and directly related to the article's topic" → Images must be significant and illustrative in the context of the article's topic (then add , rather than decorative.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:36, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Second proposal

Images should have significance and direct relevance to the article's topic, and should inform rather than decorate. They have the ability to aid in a reader's understanding of the subject, and are therefore considered an important part of an article. Instead of simply removing, editors are encouraged to locate better images and improve captions when possible. In some situations, images may not be appropriate or necessary.

• Support. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:41, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
• Support-ish Drafted a merged replacement, option 6. I like the specificity of the first one, but this one's "rather than decorate" clause is crucial. I prefer someone else's version below to use "illustrate" rather than "inform"; the latter is not really the right word.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:23, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Third proposal

Images should have significance and direct relevance to the topic, and not be primarily decorative. Images can benefit articles greatly, so finding good replacements is encouraged when removing poor and inappropriate ones. In some articles, however, images may not be needed.

• Oppose. The "significance and direct relevance" in most of these is redundant. "Images can benefit articles greatly" is an unexplained, meaningless platitude.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:56, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Fourth proposal

Images should have significance and direct relevance to the topic, and not be primarily decorative. Because of their ability to aid a reader's understanding of the subject, they are commonly an important part of an article; so finding good replacements is encouraged when removing poor or inappropriate ones. In some articles, however, images may not be necessary.

• Support. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:41, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose: "primarily decorative" is gameable. The more concise second proposal got at that point better. [Changed my mind on that.] The "Because of their ability to aid a reader's understanding of the subject, they are commonly an important part of an article" so-called explanation is less clear than the one in prop #1. This verges on tautology.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:21, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Fifth proposal

Images should have significance and direct relevance to the topic, and not be primarily decorative. Finding good replacements is encouraged when removing poor or inappropriate images, but in some articles images may not be necessary.

• Neutral See merged #6 instead.. I like the concision of this, but it lost too much from proposal #1. If this "don't blather" approach were applied to prop 1, the "primarily" decorative gameability were dropped, [it might actually be workable] and the rather redundant "significance and relevance" [nothing that isn't relevant to a context can have significance in it] were changed refer to illustration, we'd have something to work with.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:29, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

SMcCandlish, I lose the thread at "were changed refer to illustration". But could you do us all a favor and make a Sixth, by dropping/modifying "primarily decorative" in this Fifth, and adding back whatever you feel shouldn't have been lost? I'm happy with just about anything as long as we omit the tautologies. EEng 01:20, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll take a stab at it. Done; see #6.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:56, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Sixth proposal (synthesizing all of the above)

Older draft

Images must be significant and illustrative in the context of an article's topic, rather than primarily decorative. They are often an important part of an article, aiding readers' understanding. Find better images and improve captions when possible, rather than simply remove poor or inappropriate ones, especially on pages that have few visuals. However, not every article needs images, and an excessive number will be distracting in any article.

Revised (per EEng's comments, below):

Middle draft
Images must be significant and illustrative in the topic's context, not primarily decorative. They are often an important aid to understanding. When possible, find better images and improve captions rather than simply remove poor or inappropriate ones, especially on pages with few visuals. However, not every article needs images, and too many can be distracting.

Revised further per Flyer22 Reborn's and Carlotm's comments, below; others may follow):

Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative. They are often an important illustrative aid to understanding. When possible, find better images and improve captions rather than simply remove poor or inappropriate ones, especially on pages with few visuals. However, not every article needs images, and too many can be distracting.

I made this version by taking all the others, breaking them into stacks of different takes on each part, and merging the parts one at a time, with an eye to textual concision while retaining all salient ideas, and reducing some of the passive voice. I included the link in the original, but don't feel strongly about it (the point was to do a merge that lost nothing, but wasn't pedantic).

I put back the "primarily" before decorative. It's probably not as gameable as I think (I'm just paranoid from years of MOS:ICONS debates).

I also added the obviously missing point that shoving 20 images on most pages isn't helpful.
 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:56, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, SMcCandlish. I have a few questions/suggestions. I leave it to your judgment to use them as you will:

Detail list

Re Images must be significant and illustrative in the context of an article's topic, rather than primarily decorative. They are often an important part of an article, aiding readers' understanding. What more does significant and illustrative in the context of an article's topic give us than does just significant and illustrative? In what other context would Wikipedia images be significant and illustrative, or indeed be anything at all? Re They are often an important part of an article, aiding readers' understanding.: (a) Shouldn't that be "of some articles"? (b) Do people really need to be told that images aid understanding? How about just Images must aid the reader's understanding, instead of being primarily decorative. (I was going to say "understanding of the topic", but again, what other understanding could it be?) Or a bit softer: The purpose of an image is to aid the reader's understanding, not to decorate. especially on pages that have few visuals. May I suggest dropping this? I mean, it's one thing to have an exhortation which may or may not be remembered at the moment of truth, but is it really useful to have gradations of exhortation in two different situations, distinguished by a vague word like "few"? However, not every article needs images, and an excessive number will be distracting in any article. --> However, not every article needs images, and too many can be distracting.

EEng 06:05, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I trimmed it some (new draft up top), but any more compression than this and it's going to start being meaningless in places (I actually had to undo three compression attempts before saving this because upon successive readings they had parseability and ambiguity problems).

Bullet points

Some variant of "in the context of an article's topic" ("related to the article's topic", etc.) is in most of these, so it seems to be felt important (and I agree strongly), because (especially with fandom topics) people are apt to add extraneous images, e.g. related to the franchise but not to the specific subject of the article. One can easily make an argument that a particular image is fantastically important, in some other context, yet the presence of so-and-so in it may not be important at all to the topic of so-and-so. It's a clarity and anti-gaming provision. If we try to compress this to something like "in the article's context" it's just going to be meaningless buzzwords; "context" itself actually has to have a context. The word itself is useful against another pair of gaming holes (details below). I think it can be compressed to "in the topic's context", since "the article" and its "topic" are essentially the same thing here, constrains this to the topic of the article prevents the franchise-gaming misinterpretation that something like "in the article's context" means "in the context in which the article resides", i.e. the entire category of related articles. "Often an important part of an article" already auto-implied "of some articles", but I revised enough that this is moot. More than one editor wants to make this point about images aiding understanding (especially with regard to WP being a multimedia thing, which this version buries in a link to avoid brow-beating). I don't feel super-strongly about it, but was trying to merge everyone's demands, not cater just to my own desires (other than adding the thing about over-use). I've tried compressing it, but keeping both "understanding" and the multimedia education. link. If Images must aid the reader's understanding, instead of being primarily decorative is meant to replace all of the older "Images must be significant and illustrative in the context of an article's topic, rather than primarily decorative. They are often an important part of an article, aiding readers' understanding, which is now trimmed to Images must be significant and illustrative in the topic's context, not primarily decorative. They are often an important aid to understanding, that's too much loss of key words. "Significant" is already a compression of "significant and relevant" [and "on-topic", in one draft, plus "related" in another]. "Illustrative" also replaced some off-base concepts about "informative" and such, which mostly applies to graphs and the like; I think at least 3 of us wanted "illustrative". My original draft also had "of the topic" after "understanding" and I dropped it as redundant, as you realized too. I initially wanted some kind of "not decorative!" line drawn, but others had already expressed concerns about this, so I backed off. The "primarily decorative" in most of the drafts seems a workable compromise. especially on pages that have few visuals – Do we not want to make the point without belabouring it that people should go out of their way to fix or replace an image if it's the only one or the most important one on a page with only two? I did shorten it, though. At some point, too much shortening is no longer plain English, but awkward and hard to parse. It's already kind of pushing it; I tried ending just at the word "few", meaning "images" but it read as meaning "few bad ones". I did cut "an excessive number will be distracting in any article" down to "too many can be distracting." I was trying to more sharply distinguish between 'articles that don't need images' and 'overuse of images anywhere', but I guess it's not really necessary. On things like "context", vs. compressing away all nuance: The "context" wording thwarts a related pair of gaming loopholes, of the idea that an image is significant to the subject (e.g. a BLP or a corporation) themselves in their own minds or illustrative of something the subject wants to illustrate (a product line, etc.); that could lead to be attempts to insert things as "significant" that for WP are not (e.g. a painter's own favorite, which RS don't remark upon as a good example of their work). Or, vice versa, attempts to remove an image on the basis that there aren't any sources that the subject themselves found the image or what it illustrates to be significant. I really do try to anticipate loopholes when I write this stuff, because I've seen it all by this point. Anecdote: One of my pool leagues has a rule that seems to some like it should not need to be stated. Everyone calls it the "Asshole John" rule, because of a certain player who tried to rule-lawyer a few years ago. In looking over the rulesets of other leagues, I see similar points that are clearly those leagues' "Asshole Whoever" rules. It's just a fact of rulesets that you either have to account for poor (or bad-faith) interpretations of them in their own wording, or you have to have another body of supplementary rules that does so, e.g. a referee interpretation guide serving as something like "caselaw". But WP has virtually no precedent system like that (except in a few cubbyholes like CfD), so we have little choice but to account for boneheads in the main ruleset.

Hopefully the new version will be broadly satisfactory.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  11:13, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Vastly improved. To reduce ambiguity re "when possible", how about:

important aid to understanding. Find better images and improve captions when possible, rather than simply

to

important aid to understanding, so when possible find better images and improve captions, rather than simply

EEng 21:43, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I tweaked it in that direction (without the "So," which isn't necessary), and the "so when possible find" construction is a construction that in formal writing would need two commas ("so, when possible, find..."), making it awkward.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  10:58, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

You're a very smart guy, SM, but don't mistake something Miss Snodgrass taught you when you were 13 for a rigid rule; there are few places where commas are required. "important aid to understanding, so when possible find" would be perfectly OK, and the reason I was hoping to tie "important" to "when possible find" was so that "important" would have some reason to be there (i.e. to motivate the when-possible-finding), instead of being just a MOSbloat statement of the obvious, to wit that a picture is worth a 1000 words. Anyway, now that 10,000 words have been spent on these 20 words, can you just go install your version, if all the handwringing is over? EEng 05:45, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

SMcCandlish, thank you for helping with this. Your participation in this dispute has moved things along quite well, and I very much appreciate it. It's like a breath of fresh air, really. I am fine with the latest proposals (meaning the ones in this section), but I think "Images must be significant and illustrative" is not clear. "Significant" can mean a number of things, and "illustrative" is a bit confusing since images are going to be illustrative no matter what. I think "significant" should be "relevant." I definitely think we should maintain the "relevant" aspect. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:09, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn: I used to be a professional policy analyst, and am glad to lend a hand in this sort of thing when I can. Re: "significant" and "illustrative" – What did you have in mind regarding "illustrative"? This has been picked over so much, it's difficult to picture (pun intended) any replacements that are not going to raise another round of objections. I didn't come up with either of these words, but am not sure I agree they're problematic, and at this point it would probably be better to run with this version, leave it a lone a while, and see what the rest of WP has to say about it. Even a single additional editor with no "dog in the fight" a month from now might produce improvements none of us thought of. The problem with "relevant" is that it's a very low standard, and is frequently interpreted to mean "connected to the topic or context in any way". This very problem has been a sticking point for many years in the development of a WP guideline on relevance/significance/anti-trivia. "Illustration" actually has a narrow definition in publishing, which directly applies here (however, our own article Illustration is weak, and only addresses portraiture and landscape, and suggests decorative use, which is not what the term really encompasses. I'll add improving that article to my to-do list....

As to those two words, my personal take on the matter:

Illustration is a term of art in publishing; it doesn't mean "image", but "relevant image that helps the reader visualize or otherwise better understand the written material it accompanies, and is not present simply to get attention, to break up layout blocks, or just be visually appealing", in short. Because something has to be relevant in order to be illustrative, adding "relevant" would be conceptually redundant, while "significant' is not; it's very easy to over-illustrate with insignificant (trivial) detail. Not all artists are illustrators, and not all graphic design is illustration. "Significant" is a word WP uses frequently, at WP:N and other policies, guidelines on lists and categories, and at essays on WP:RELEVANCE, and many other places. It is always open to interpretation and this seems to be by community design; it's something of a "let WP:CONSENSUS and WP:COMMONSENSE be your guide as to what is really WP:ENCyclopedic" term of art in and of itself around here. That said, I'm not wedded to it, and included it because most of the drafts I synthesized did, so it seems to represent the forming consensus. I feel more strongly about "illustration" which makes sense in the context and replaced "informative" which really only applies to info-graphics like charts, or photos that contain crucial details and are not general depictions. PS: The latest serious proposal for merging all the "relevance", "significance", "stay on topic", and "avoid trivia" essays into a guideline was actually favoring the title "Significance" (or one with that as the main word) because of problems with both "trivia" and "relevance".

Don't know if that assuages or not.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  10:58, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Seems like you interchanged mixed up the order of some letters in sausages. And remember, the two things you never want to watch being made are assuages and vegetation. EEng 06:04, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, good points. I prefer "relevant" because Wikipedians (the experienced ones anyway), from what I've generally seen, usually understand that the image should be on-topic. And when editors remove images, they commonly state "irrelevant," "off-topic," "not needed," and similar. I've seen that people generally agree on what "relevant" means, but they more so have different views on what "significant" means. I fear that "significant" will lead to many debates about what image is significant or not. As for editors possibly adding any and every image because they view it as relevant, this is why we've included the "images generally should not be decorative" aspect, and have the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images#Offensive images section. The guideline also currently states "direct relevance," if that helps. I also think "significant" is adequately covered by the "images are often an important aid to understanding" part of your proposals. As for using "illustrative," I don't strongly oppose that, and I don't have a suggestion for what could replace it. So I would go with "Images must be relevant and illustrative" in place of "Images must be significant and illustrative." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:31, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

See new text above. I juggled stuff around, and was able to work in "relevant", which Carlotm also wanted, without doing any "violence" to the text. I merged the illustrative bit into the multimedia ed. link, and when paired directly with "significant" I realized that "relevance" doesn't have the "it can mean whatever I want it to mean, including on-topic trivia" problem (which isn't about the number of images included, but, well, their significance versus triviality; it could affect an article with only one image). The guideline elsewhere addressing relevance was another reason I didn't see a need to include it. At this point we've spent about as much time on this basic statement, which has meant pretty much the same thing in all versions, as Congress or Parliament usually spends on text of similar length but much more significance in major legislation. :-) Hopefully everyone can live with this version. PS: If you're happy with this version, note that you're still 'Supporting prop. 1, which may be seen as "winning" since it has two support. :-) In the end we may need to close and restart the RfC with a single proposal.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:25, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

While I still think there will be "What is significant?" debates by including "significant," I'm good with your new proposal. Thanks. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:23, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

NP. To paraphrase a rap song, "wikilawyas gonna wikilawya". Any other term like "relevant" or "on-topic" is just as presently uncodified in policy as "significant", but we use that one with pretty consistent meaning in multiple places, so it's probably the least likely to be gamed this way. I intend to see to it (or help see to it) that a WP:Significance guideline evolves some time this year from all the scattered pages on the topic. Or at least a merged, consistent essay that pools the others.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  08:53, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

SMcCandlish, I'm surprised at you. There's nothing funny about rap. EEng 15:56, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

"This is not the East or the West Side." "No, it's not."  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  18:01, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Lest others think I've fallen asleep in class, I'd better confirm that I too have no vehement objections to

Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative. They are often an important illustrative aid to understanding. When possible, find better images and improve captions rather than simply remove poor or inappropriate ones, especially on pages with few visuals. However, not every article needs images and too many can be distracting.

Certainly it's a little bit more verbose and less crisp than I'd ideally like but I'd like to thank everyone for staying the course and arriving at consensual text. BushelCandle (talk) 23:40, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I oppose "images must be significant". Someone's going to misread that as meaning that the image itself must be "significant", e.g., notable or important to the world. This will be read as a ban on using run-of-the-mill images to illustrate run-of-the-mill subjects. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I must admit I suddenly did a double-take when your name suddenly popped up here, WhatamIdoing - then I realised I was confusing you with Whatshouldichoose and breathed a sigh of relief.

Can you suggest alternative wording, please? BushelCandle (talk) 02:50, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I haven't yet seen anyone explain how they want to change editors' behavior (e.g., to encourage more of X, or to stop pointless disputes about Y), so I think this discussion and all of these proposed changes are largely a waste of time. #6 is the only one whose wording will result in stupid disputes; therefore I oppose it. The others appear to be exercises in "No, let's write this guideline in my favorite writing style!" They will have no actual effect on anybody; consequently, IMO this is about as pointful as arguing over which font should be used. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Discussion area

Just a brief comment here that I modified Proposal 2 before other opinions started flying in. This is a result of the feedback I received earlier, and after a 3rd and 4th look at the grammar. Hopefully, that's not an issue with anyone. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:38, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

That's fine. I did wonder why it looked a little different when I just voted "Support," especially since it looked like the version after the tweaks, which is the version I preferred when it came to your proposal. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:44, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

My apologies for any confusion it briefly caused! --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:46, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I removed the delete-and-insert markup to make it readable.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  02:24, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

• This is something of a side comment {but indirectly related to the question in the RFC)... I think it is important to say that images should illustrate things that are stated in the article text. That gives the image a purpose beyond mere decoration. Also, since any text an image is illustrating must be verifiable... saying this will help prevents Original Research and Venerability problems that can be introduced though images. Blueboar (talk) 19:49, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

If I may add a sixth proposal:

Being Wikipedia a multimedia project, relevant and on topic images, and their captions, are an important part of any article's presentation. Improving quality and choice of images in articles, rather than tending to their removal, should be favored.

Though I am of the opinion that these little retouches are a waste of time. A much in depth revision of all images' related pages is warranted. Carlotm (talk) 01:42, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I didn't notice this until after already posting a sixth-proposal section. I think it addresses what you are getting at here, and some of your proposed wording couldn't be integrated ("Being Wikipedia a" isn't grammatical; "relevant and on-topic" is redundant; it's not true that "any" article is improved by images, only most of them). The "multimedia" point is preserved by the link to multimedia education.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  02:13, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Revised sixth proposal:

In Wikipedia, a multimedia project, relevant and on topic images, and their captions, may be an important part of an article's presentation. Improving quality and choice of images, rather than tending to their removal, should be favored.

Carlotm (talk) 06:38, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Still has the redundancy; "on-topic" (which is hyphenated as a compound adjective) means the same thing as "relevant". We don't need to explicitly tell people the obvious; even brand-new people know that WP, like virtually all websites, is multimedia. The important point about multimedia here is the role it plays in informing, which is why we're linking to multimedia education. What is "choice" of images? Who is choosing what and from where? In what way is this guidance? "Tending to their removal" doesn't really parse. Do you mean seeing to their removal, or leaning toward their removal? "Sound be favored" isn't guideline language (not in WP's style, anyway). All of these points (to the extent I understand what they're intended to mean) are already covered in the 6th proposal that is actually a proposal section. This buried one is sort of a "5.5th proposal" at this point.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  10:58, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

"On-topic" and "relevant" are not the same thing. Their slightly different meaning, especially when paired, is quite easily to follow. Although it may be evident that Wikipedia is a multimedia project, editors are often forgetting it. "Tending", whether "acting toward", or "looking after" (their removal), is a reader's choice. I agree that the so-called sixth proposal, which in temporal order is a seventh proposal, is quite close to this one, notwithstanding reader's inability to understand it. Still the seventh appears too prosaic and obvious, in my opinion of course. Carlotm (talk) 21:53, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm skeptical that many editors would agree with your view of "on-topic" and "relevant"; various templates relating to the concept(s) have been merged for example, and there's an on-hold proposed project to merge most of the essays listed at WP:RELEVANCE because so few people draw distinctions that fine. You've not spelled out what you think the difference is, much less why it's crucial, so I'm going to move on; they're similar enough that we don't need to use both of them; almost all the objections to all drafts have been over wordiness, especially redundant and over-explanatory types. The fact that you're actively intending "tending" to be ambiguous kind of proves my point about it. I'm glad you feel the proposals are simpatico. I don't think anyone cares what the numbering is. Yours is buried in a talk section, so virtually on one will see it. That's why I already took pains to integrate what I could from it into the synthesis draft and explained why some of it couldn't practically be integrated using the given wording. We have no feedback from any readers that they can't understand it. And, it's guideline material mostly for new-ish editor, so it needs to be prosaic enough to be explanatory without requiring previous "community experience" about things that are only obvious to those who have it. Hopefully this is enough to resolve your concerns, otherwise this will just get circular.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  10:29, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Closing RfC

This RfC has been listed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure for sometime. Should someone here who hasn't been involved, or heavily involved, in this discussion simply close it as consensus for SMcCandlish's proposal in the #Sixth proposal (synthesizing all of the above) section above? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:29, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Making changes without discussion, and the need to keep this guideline stable

BushelCandle and EEng have made a number of changes to this guideline that a number of editors have disagreed with, especially Johnbod, Moxy, Masem, and myself. While I understand the point about not discussing every minor change to the page, they are not simply making minor changes to the page. When you are making significant changes to longstanding sections of a guideline, those changes should generally have discussion first. It does not matter how right you think you are, or how much better you think you are at writing the rules. The top of guideline pages states "Please ensure that any edits to this page reflect consensus." for a valid reason. All these changes and back and forth disputes also make for an unstable guideline. And like I noted in the #WP:PERTINENCE section above, "It is not a good thing for a guideline to have different wording from day to day, or even from week to week." BushelCandle agreed with that, and yet still kept making changes that had no consensus. This needs to stop. This is not an article, and should not be treated like one, with editors going in and making any change they want, resulting in back and forth edits, edit warring and unnecessary arguments. There is nothing wrong with proposing changes first, and seeing what editors think. This is a guideline, for goodness' sake; that is what should be done. It should not be a page edited on the whim of one or more editors. This lack of consensus for the changes is what has some editors wanting to restore parts of this guideline back to the WP:STATUSQUO. I am not asking for a return to the WP:STATUSQUO for everything on the page. But when there is no consensus for one or more changes made to a guideline or policy page, the status quo should remain; SlimVirgin has tried to make that clear in the case of this guideline, to no avail. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:18, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

My main concerns is the page is changing daily many times...this is simply not how we improve our protocol pages. We have conversations all over trying to quote things here but they never stay the same...thus other discussions are being impended by all the changes here. We dont want people to point to our "how to pages" over the guideline because the guide is not stable nor matching the another page on the topic. Guidance isn't created from scratch or by a few editors in a few days....all that was here took over a decade to come to the proper wording and then that was reflected in the "how to page". Its a bit of a mess here now.... have ongoing talks on about multiple sections and the rest being re-wording daily and expansion tags all over. We need to update Wikipedia:How to contribute to Wikipedia guidance to make it clear that editing and trying to solve ever problem at one time is not good approach...nor should it spill over on to other policy and guideline pages..... perhaps a sandbox and the statuquo would help us see all the changes. Its hard to move forward when so much is begin asked and changed all the time. -- Moxy (talk) 19:03, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

It will probably help a bit to notify the main WT:MOS talk page of major disputes here (or just raise them there to begin with); it's better watchlisted, by people with a broad and long-term view (including with regard to stability). I don't know if the #6 merged draft I did above will be accepted, but it's an illustration of the kind of approach the MoS regulars would bring, a merge-consolidate-and-clarify method. One problem with the MoS subpages is they tend to get a lot of instruction creep and may even diverge through WP:LOCALCONSENSUS and WP:FALSECONSENSUS from MoS itself (which supersedes them) until normalized again. A good rule of thumb is that if you're changing something here that would affect the summary version at WP:MOS itself, raise it on the WT:MOS talk page, or it probably won't fly in the long run. (There have even been attempts in the past to change a bunch of MoS subpages and related naming conventions guidelines in an attempt to "force" a change at MoS itself. Spectacular and massively disruptive failures.)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  02:07, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I know that getting help from WT:MOS is important; that's why I alerted them to the above dispute. I completely agree with your statement. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:24, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I know you know that. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  10:21, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I think it's important for editors to remember that WP:PGBOLDly editing a guideline is acceptable per the long-standing policy on how to edit policies and guidelines. Not everyone will be comfortable doing that, but it is a valid and "legal" approach even when this results in temporary instability. "Reflecting consensus" means "My changes better describe what the community at large is doing in this area". It does not mean "I got written permission from a handful of editors on the talk page before changing this".

If someone (e.g., at FAC) is encountering practical problems with this, then they can squawk and we can help them. However, let's not assume without evidence that instability in this particular guideline is likely to cause any such problems. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:34, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Attempting to change something non-trivial in a WP:POLICY page boldly is permissible per WP:EDITING policy. It rarely sticks when not discussed, so there is little point in such an approach, most of the time. It can be used to kick-start discussions, per the D in WP:BRD, when people have been avoiding the discussion, but there's rarely much utility in "change long-standing policy to say something radically different" actions.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  18:50, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Most of these changes are not "radically different", and quite a few of them barely reach beyond "cosmetic". In my personal experience – and I freely admit that I am an outlier here – nearly all of my undiscussed changes to guidelines and policies "stick" long term. Your personal experience may be the opposite. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:26, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• I also dont have these problems.....but i also adhere to WP:PGBOLD ". Bold editors of policy and guideline pages are strongly encouraged to follow WP:1RR or WP:0RR standards. " ....this has not happened here....thus why all the problems. --Moxy (talk) 01:59, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

How should MoS-defiant image editing be handled?

After I removed the gallery of examples of ethnic Madhesis (with an edit summary of "Sadly, WP:NOETHNICGALLERIES applies: see this article's discussion page"), my removal was immediately reverted.

Obviously I do not wish to get into an edit war by reverting the reversion, so what are good ways to handle MoS-defiant image editing, please? BushelCandle (talk) 21:23, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Though I don't have any sympathy with your reverter on this particular point, the MOS images pages have for so long been well adrift of what the community actually does, and discussions and changes here dominated by a handful of opinionated policy talk specialists, that nobody pays much attention to what the pages say any more. It can't convincingly be claimed that the MOS represents "community consensus" on a number of points. See any number of FAC discussions, for dogs that don't bark. Johnbod (talk) 03:06, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

So open an RfC on it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:56, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

No, I'm not going to give you that treat. I'll just go on ignoring it, like everyone else who actually edits articles. Johnbod (talk) 13:48, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Read: "No, I know I have an outlying opinion that consensus will not actually back."  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:54, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

No, read: "There would be an interminable discussion which only a handful of people would join, and they would soon give up reading the platform speeches of the policy talk specialists, who would then carry on, having found something to argue about among themselves, for 20 screens or so. No conclusion is likely to be reached. Meanwhile "consensus" is found in what editors actually do, and what is accepted at FAC." The two Rfcs leading to WP:NOETHNICGALLERIES are rare recent exceptions to this rule, partly because the point at issue was relatively simple and pretty much answerable by "yes" or "no" without sprouting alternative options, unlike most issues here. Johnbod (talk) 13:03, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

My advice is to remember that this is a guideline, not a policy, and therefore leeway exists with its rules. WP:Policies and guidelines explains the matter, and so does WP:BURO. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:35, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Please, do nothing. Carlotm (talk) 18:47, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I thought that existing galleries that were not the subject of dispute were to be left alone? (or that might have just been wishful thinking on my part) Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:13, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Absurd wording of an unnecessary addition

Lately BushelCandle made an addition to a sentence that was already kind of inaccurate. The original sentence: "If multiple related images are being placed on the right, then the {{multiple image}} template may be useful." Why placed on the right? The template allow any alignment. Yes, the most common placement is on the right; but why continue to bombard the reader with this limitation of mind? The addition: "....may be useful but be aware that this template does not allow logged in user's selected image sizes to be respected." Who cares about logged in users. Common readers of Wikipedia are not logged in; even a big chunk of editors are not logged in. So there is no need here to introduce the reader to the longstanding question/dispute "upright or pixel". If an editor needs to use {{multiple image}}, he will , regardless of "upright or pixel". Anyway, if really it's deemed important here to refer to this vexed question, go to the point, e.g: "....may be useful but be aware that this template allow to set images width only in pixel (px) and not using upright (for a discussion on image sizing please go to WP:IMGSIZE)." Carlotm (talk) 07:03, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Many astute editors realise that the most important reason for using relative image sizing (rather than hard coding a fixed pixel width) is not so much to respect the small minority of logged-in users' thumb size preferences that have been changed, but rather to be better prepared for the probable case that there is a change in the default size from 220px. If we jump to 280px, then all those hard coded 240px and 260px, never mind 200px, are going to look pretty forlorn...

You're absolutely right about the right hand alignment, though.

Unfortunately if you look at the archived history of this guideline page and associated discussion page, you'll see that there has sometimes been hand-to-hand trench warfare about the positions of commas and selecting word order and adverbs, so I was loathe to scrub placed on the right. If it was up to me, I wouldn't draw attention to this crippled template anywhere and hope it then dies an obscure death. BushelCandle (talk) 08:33, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Your point about future changes to default size is a very good one. EEng 12:31, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Given your response, BushelCandle, I expect a change in your addition's wording.

In a wider perspective, if we really care about relative image sizing (RIS), as we all should, we will first scrap the current upright method which binds the image size to the so called default size, which nobody should pay attention to since it doesn't have any relation to the most important dimension at hand, which is the page width. We should instead (1) change, or at least raise awareness about, all those graphic elements, and their inside images, where width is set directly in pixels (infoboxes, tables, templates), and (2) create a new, real RIS method ("size"?) that sets the size of any graphic element as a percentage of the page width (or of its host width). But we are not there yet. In the meantime, the increased monitors' resolutions and dimensions, and the capabilities of browsers to let the user zoom in and out and even change the default dimension of font alone without changing any other element, are superseding all our current quarrels about image sizing. Carlotm (talk) 20:38, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

There's a lot of merit in what you write about page width, but I am essentially a copyeditor and lack the time and fortitude for the longer struggle of enhancing our overall reader experience. BushelCandle (talk) 20:54, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

RfC notice: Use of flag icons on genocide-related articles

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons#Use of flag icons on genocide-related articles.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:30, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Sandwiching

I've been religiously trying to prevent sandwiching wherever I edited. One thing this doesn't mention is the complexities involved and moreover, I don't see even many FAs following this which led to me to believe that this isn't an important part of the MOS. Collapsible infoboxes, templates and TOCs can significantly alter the overall layout of an article and can easily "break" an otherwise text sandwich-free article. When they say it should be avoided, they mean only in the "default" view of the article right? Another way it can break, is even with a slight change to content (ie expansion, trimming) can upset the balance of the article. So far I've found that this is the hardest MOS advice to listen to. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 21:54, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

"See Figure 1"

The MOS says to "Avoid referring to images as being to the left/right, or above/below, because image placement varies with platform, and is meaningless to people using screen readers; instead, use captions to identify images." - should this also explicitly extend to avoiding "(Figure 1)" type asides in text? I see these occasionally, and they always seem redundant, being just as clear (and more accessible) if the image is located next to the paragraph, and if its caption is rewritten to clearly state what it's illustrating. --McGeddon (talk) 16:50, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

To me it seems inherent in the existing text. FunkMonk (talk) 17:05, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Sometimes the figure can't be located exactly where you'd like it, sometimes one figure needs to be referred to at several scattered points in the article, and sometimes two or more similar figures need to be discussed via comparison or contrast. The most vociferous objection to "Fig. 1" etc. was that saying "See Fig. 1" is a "command to the reader" which is forbidden by some snobbish sense of style. That's ridiculous, of course, since we have hatnotes, See also sections, and all kinds of things that "command the reader", but that's as far as that discussion got.

The other problem, of course, is that there's no way to automatically number figures, and refer to those assigned numbers in the text, so that the Fig. #s don't have to be manually adjusted any time images are added, removed, or juggled. EEng 21:04, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Referring to images in text

I think we need a section on "Referring to images in text." The particular evil I want addressed is content like "(see image at right)" which generally fails on mobile viewers. Suggested wording:

Avoid referring to images by position, e.g. "(see image at right)," as displayed image position may differ on mobile Wikipedia viewers.

Perhaps there are other issues that might be covered.--agr (talk) 13:31, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

I have seen that practice discouraged in the guidelines, but I can't point to it at the moment. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:41, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

I tried to find something on the topic too, also without success. That suggests to me a named section on this page would be appropriate, so people looking for guidance on image use would be likely to see it.--agr (talk) 15:31, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Sometimes this is necessary, or very useful, but over-specific locators should be avoided, if only because the pictures quite often get re-arranged by people who haven't read through the text. Better to make clear which picture is meant, by saying clearly what it is of. Johnbod (talk) 16:53, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

• Text already says,

Avoid referring to images as being to the left/right, or above/below, because image placement varies with platform and screen size, and is meaningless to people using screen readers; instead, use captions to identify images.

EEng 17:24, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for finding it, but it is in a section called "Vertical placement", not where most editors would look. I think a separate section heading such as "Referring to images in article text" containing this sentence (and possibly expanding on the advice), would be better. I think it should be right after the placement discussions, before and at the same level as "Size".--agr (talk) 15:49, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I think you're right. Take a look [13], though I really can't decide whether it should be a ===-level or ====-level section. EEng 18:56, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Proposed repeal of WP:NOETHNICGALLERIES

I would like to propose the repeal of the language in this guideline which forbids the inclusion of image galleries in articles about human ethnic groups. This would bring such articles into conformity with Wikipedia's general practice of attempting to include informative image(s) in articles wherever reasonably possible. Even articles about sub-species groupings directly analogous to human ethnic groups, such as Maine Coon, include images of their subjects.

Possible counter-arguments:

1. Classification of people on the basis of ethnic group is offensive. -> Please see WP:NOTCENSORED.
2. Where no reliable sources for classification of specific people on the basis of ethnic group can be found, such classifications constitute original research. -> The original research policy specifically allows the use of original images in articles, even when visual analysis of photo content forms the sole basis for concluding that photos depict their purported subject matter.
3. Human ethnic groups have no biological, genetic, or other scientific basis. Therefore, there is no reasonable basis for classifying photos of people as depictions of such groups. -> This argument is flat out wrong, according to "Genetic structure, self-identified race/ethnicity, and confounding in case-control association studies" PMID 15625622. This particular paper qualifies as a secondary WP:RS since the authors aren't analyzing data they collected themselves. Note also the approval of isosorbide dinitrate/hydralazine by the FDA, which would have hardly occurred if human ethnicity were not a scientifically definable concept.
4. The inherent uncertainty and changes over time in definitions of human ethnic groups creates a class of photos which may or may not depict a particular ethnic group. -> When depicting an ethnic group, we aim for the center, and not the edge.

Full disclosure: I am opening a discussion about this issue in response to a dispute about whether a photo gallery for the White people article with the images I selected is appropriate for Wikipedia. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 04:06, 29 May 2016 (UTC)