Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Location (2)

I've removed the following text from the Location section:"Avoid placing images on the left at the start of any section or subsection, because it makes it harder for readers to find the beginning of the text. Images on the left are best placed somewhere after the first paragraph." It was added back in July last year [1], apparently to make this guideline consistent with the main WP:MOS page. But the current WP:MOS makes no mention of this recommendation, which really doesn't make much sense anyway, at least for full section headers; there may or may not be a case to be made for or against left-aligned images in subsection headers. George Ponderevo (talk) 22:30, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

As the edit summary says, it is "from" the MOS, meaning that it was removed from the main MOS page because it was being placed here. Quite a lot of minor image-related stuff had accumulated in the main MOS page and was moved over here, where it actually belongs, in the fall of 2011. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:47, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Where was this discussed? And why, if what you say is true, was material removed from the main MoS page in 2011 not added to this page until the middle of last year? George Ponderevo (talk) 05:01, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

It was added in this large series of edits by Gradiose and myself in October and November 2011. The fact that you didn't look any further back than last summer is not proof that it wasn't on the page before then. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:17, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

That's not really answering the question though is it. When you added this material it was not on the main MoS page despite you claiming that it was; it had been removed from there more than six months earlier. So I repeat, where was your addition discussed? George Ponderevo (talk) 14:38, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I am also bemused. I cannot find any evidence that the text was in the Manual of Style at any point going back to 20 September 2011; perhaps I overlooked its addition and removal withint hat frame but I did check a number of revisions where I can see no mention of the requirement. WhatamIdoing, when you laid it down here but I am totally lost. I know you've suggested it cam from the MOS itself - did it come from another page not the main one? Else where? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:34, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

It's been in the MOS pages in one form or another for years. See 2009 in ACCESS, 2009 in the main MOS, and related information (more about the complaint above) as far back as 2007 in LAYOUT. This is not new information.

It's also standard practice for professional layout work. The first word is supposed to be in a predictable, easy-to-spot location. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:29, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

No, it's old misinformation that was removed from the MoS, and then some time later mysteriously resurfaces here. What the MoS actually said in the version to which you provided a link was this: "Do not place left-aligned images directly below a subsection-level heading (=== or lower), as this sometimes disconnects the heading from the text that follows it.", which is not at all what you've added here. George Ponderevo (talk) 16:53, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

You might also consider what professional sources say about this issue. Look at this article on web page formatting, for example, which says:

We can also move the lead image to the right. This allows the body copy to hold its shape better and allows for even easier scanning of the article. We can break this principle to draw attention to images and figures, of course, but for our example the image is too distracting on the left when placed early in the article.

And since I don't want to bother sorting through your contributions, would you tell me why you're so upset about this? You're sounding very much like your favorite ox is being gored because this MOS page contains standard advice about improving readability. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:43, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Upset? The only thing that upsets me is having to watch hobby-horse riders trying to ride roughshod over sensible and hard-working editors. You might like to consider what common sense has to say about this issue. George Ponderevo (talk) 01:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I've been affected by this issue a few times. In United States v. Wong Kim Ark, for example, I had originally placed some images on the left (in order to have alternating left/right placement of images), but other editors insisted on moving them to the right because of the disputed MOS provision. I am not currently convinced that this provision is necessary; if starting a section or subsection with a left-placed image really does make it harder to read the text, I would like to see more evidence of this. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 16:54, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

MOS:IMAGES contains this language about forced left justification: "In most cases, images should be right justified on pages, which is the default placement. If an exception to the general rule is warranted, forcing an image to justify on the left side of a page is done by placing a parameter in the image coding ..." Regarding alternating image locations: "Multiple images in the same article can be staggered right-and-left." It doesn't say you have to stagger them right-and-left. Bede735 (talk) 14:12, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I think Rich's example shows a well-laid out article that has relatively few images compared to the volume of text. There is one left-justified image, placed in the middle of a section rather than at the very first line.

If you have a large number of images relative to the text, e.g., at an image-spam-attracting and otherwise underdeveloped article like Bride, then you pretty much have to stagger images, or resign yourself to having a string of images that hangs down one or more screenfuls past the text. I believe that the stagger-left-and-right rule has been pushed hard at FAC in the past, with the result that some editors believed that all articles must always do this, even if they contain almost no images. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I had a look at Bride. Horror! It has whole paragraphs 'sandwiched' between two images facing each other.--Lubiesque (talk) 22:17, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Was a consensus ever reached? I would imagine that the disputed provision – which was in place for more than a year – should be kept in the article until consensus deems otherwise. I've been citing this rule over the past year, and just now realized it was removed. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:08, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

"Avoid placing images on the left at the start of any section or subsection, because it makes it harder for readers to find the beginning of the text. Images on the left are best placed somewhere after the first paragraph."

This guidance should be restored to the article. It is consistent with the Forced left justification guidance: "In most cases, images should be right justified on pages, which is the default placement. If an exception to the general rule is warranted, forcing an image to justify on the left side of a page is done by placing ..." The guidance is flexible and allows for alternating locations if the context allows. Bede735 (talk) 23:53, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Did we come up with any evidence that left aligned images at the beginning of section are actually a problem? I think that would pretty much settle the matter.--SabreBD (talk) 00:12, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

The overall MOS guidance instructs right justification. An article was provided above that captures this basic rule of typography and design: Smashing Magazine. I await evidence that justifies this change of guidance. Bede735 (talk) 01:15, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing something but I don't see consensus for George Ponderevo's removal. Shouldn't it be place back in the guide?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:36, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

That was my point above as well. Although George started a discussion immediately after removing the text, it really should have been started before. I've reverted the changes for now on the basis that consensus regarding its removal isn't very clear. Perhaps an RfC is needed. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:01, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Apparently, George Ponderevo retired from Wikipedia shortly after this discussion was started, so we're not likely to hear back from the editor who brought the issue to the floor. SabreBD, you (and any other editor) are certainly welcome to continue the discussion, but if not, we can consider the case closed. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:26, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I have been doing a bit of research on this issue, which so far has been rather inconclusive, but I have no objection to the restoration of the original wording. My reading of the consensus here matches that of Keithbob. We can always discuss it at a later date and see if consensus changes. Personally my objections are practical, rather than principled, that it is difficult to balance the "eyes to text" rule with this. This is countered to my satisfaction by the sensible interpretation taken by editors like WhatamIdoing, previously discussed on this page - that these different rules have to be reasonably balanced. For anyone interested all the evidence so far indicates that this is inherited from practice in newspapers and has a basis in fact, but it does not seem to have been tested for online reading.--SabreBD (talk) 22:49, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I believe that "George" is simply operating under another name these days. His fourth, perhaps? He happens to be blocked this month.

I wouldn't object to softening this advice; it's advice about what's good in general, rather than what should be done in absolutely every case. There may be circumstances, such as articles whose sections rarely contain more than one paragraph, for which this might be difficult to apply in practice. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:27, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Which month is that? Eric Corbett 20:23, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I completely agree. It doesn't seem like it needs to be an absolute rule. I would support rephrasing the guideline so that it sounds more like a preference that has exceptions. Articles early on in development with limited content wouldn't be handicapped by the guideline, but at the same time, the advice would encourage editors to strive for better image placement as the article expands. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:13, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

The reason I came to this discussion is because I came across this article Montacute House which just passed GA with all of its sections beginning with pix on the left. There are many beautiful, high quality photos in the article but its hard to fit them within their sections without starting the section with a photo. So I sympathize with the editors but.... at the same time, it also clearly distracts from the reading of the text. Take a look and you'll see what I mean. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:41, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Since Montacute House has been mentioned and it seems no one has mentioned accessibility concerns. Montacute House is a great example of what not to do with images as outlined by our policy - images on the left - forcing big images beyond any recommendations - hiding of images - sandwiching of text ... all are a concern for accessibility as outlined at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility. look at Montacute House on an old screen or your mobile phone and you will see why all this is a concern.Moxy (talk) 23:28, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Moxy, you are just stirring a very old pot and we all know that you have ulterior motives, I suggest that you drop this now, before you overtax yourself.  Giano  20:09, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

It was not I that mentioned the article in the first place and I am free to comment on what I like. I did however inform the Montacute House talk page that the article has been mentioned here so people involved there can comment on the concerns raised. Please fell free to comment on the situation at hand if you wish. -- Moxy (talk) 20:37, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I totally agree on the Montacute House issues, it is a classical example of what not to do. On the issue of finding a new way of phrasing, I am in favour of that as long as it doesn't get too long and difficult to interpret, so some care would need to be taken with this. Maybe the order of these is significant. The most important guidelines should probably go first. After that, "where possible" might be useful. Just a suggestion.--SabreBD (talk) 13:26, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't recall the disputed text ever being in the MoS. There used to be advice not to place images on the left directly under third-level headings, because it caused some technical problem, but that was found no longer to pertain so it was removed (writing from memory). The only issue with left-aligned images is that readers' eyes follow images, so they can distract readers from the text. However, if the aim is to draw people's attention to the image, before they read the text, then left-aligned images can work well. Placing images on the right and left, so that text is sandwiched, can also have the effect of drawing attention to the text too, depending on how it's done. For all these reasons I think placement should be left to editorial discretion, because everything depends on context. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:57, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the original advice discouraged placement directly under subsection headings, since these heading types do not use horizontal line separators. It appears that multiple editors so far agree that there will be a few exceptions (noted above in addition to the one you mentioned), and as a result, the guideline should be rephrased to reflect that. Though exceptions do exist, many left-justified images are simply placed there by mistake or for no good reason at all. Therefore, there's a good case for keeping the guideline, albeit in some modified form perhaps assigned a lower priority. --GoneIn60 (talk) 12:34, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I adjusted the image locations and forced sizing in the Montacute House article according to the current MOS:IMAGES guidance, showing that images can be staggered left and right where appropriate without placing images on the left at the start of a section. Since I did not work on the article, please feel free to revert my edit. Bede735 (talk) 15:08, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

You were no less entitled to make those changes than any other editor. Unfortunately, you've been reverted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:47, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Very true, you have been reverted. I am sorry Bede, but you are being used as a stooge by Andy Mabbitt who is just trolling for trouble as usual. All major changed to a GA should be discussed on the talk page with the primary authors who have to maintain the page. As Mabbitt and his sidekick Moxy well know.  Giano  17:21, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Your behavior is simply appealing and I see you dont have the maturity level to talk with others in a proper manner. You make wild accusations and insult people at every turn. Your behavior needs to be amended ASAP - you look like a fool.Moxy (talk) 01:08, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad you find me so 'appealing' Moxy; now just stop trolling and go and find something productive to do.  Giano  09:49, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

• I think this guideline is unhelpful, and should be removed (or reworded so it is optional). This is pretty much just a style issue that should be dealt with on an individual basis. FunkMonk (talk) 15:51, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
• I really see no reason to keep this wording: like SlimVirgin, my recollection is that it was removed from the accessibility guideline because it was found to have no impact on accessibility. DrKiernan (talk) 22:23, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• Keep Since this sentence was moved here from the MOS main page, it presumably had the consensus support of the larger group of editors there. Also, a large photo at the beginning of a level 3 or below section will divorce the section heading from the text, and make the heading appear to be a title for the photo. This easily confuses readers and should be avoided. LK (talk) 05:04, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

But that's not the wording employed: the old wording was just what you've said, i.e. avoid placing a left-aligned photo at a level 3 heading or below, but that has become "avoid placing a photo at the start of any section". Either the old wording should be restored or the paragraph should be removed: it never had consensus in the first place. DrKiernan (talk) 08:03, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I think https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lake_Disappear&oldid=534270207 looks better than https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Disappear and it is easier to relate the photos to the text. Can anyone suggest how this can be done to achieve that and keep to this manual?

I have determined where this guideline came from and why it was it removed. At Wikipedia:Manual of Style, it was:

• added 26 October 2006 because '"float left" images should not come immediately after second-level (===) headings. Instead they should be immediately before': See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 58#Multiple images in an article
• Guidance to place left-aligned images above section headings instead of below was removed 9 August 2007, after full guidance was removed and restored the previous day.
• It was removed 15 September 2009
• restored 17 September 2009
• removed 17 September 2009
• restored 18 September 2009
• and finally removed 22 September 2009
• See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 109#Question and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 109#Left-side images under section headings—reversion? for more discussion.

At Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility:

• It was added 18 November 2007
• removed 16 September 2009
• See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Archive 10#Left-aligned images under subsection headers and image squeezing. DrKiernan (talk) 11:21, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

In line with the discussion below and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure, which states "Where consensus is clear, any editor—even one involved in the discussion—may close the discussion", I shall remove the guidance on right-aligning below sub-headings. The guideline still states "In most cases, images should be right justified on pages". If I misread consensus, please undo the close and list the discussion at AN/RfC. Thanks. DrKiernan (talk) 11:04, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

---

Should the part of the guideline "avoid placing left-aligned images directly below ===Level 3=== subheadings" be removed? DrKiernan (talk) 09:52, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Currently recommended	Currently discouraged
===Subsection=== Here's the first paragraph. [[:File:Example.jpg|thumb|left|Here's the image]] Here's the second paragraph. Here's the third paragraph.	===Subsection=== [[:File:Example.jpg|thumb|left|Here's the image]] Here's the first paragraph. Here's the second paragraph. Here's the third paragraph.

• Remove. I think this is unnecessary instruction creep essentially driven by personal choice. DrKiernan (talk) 09:52, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
• Remove: It's a silly, blanket, unnecessary rule that often results in people and buildings turning disdainfully from their own pages. Frequently, it just looks plain wrong. Pages need be aesthetically pleasing in order to attract people to read them.  Giano  12:10, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
  • User:Giano, I'm confused by this response. How does "try putting that image one inch lower on the screen, after a little bit of text" make the image subjects "turn disdainfully from their own pages"? The image faces the same direction regardless of whether you have ===Subheading=== File:Example.jpg or ===Subheading=== One paragraph File:Example.jpg. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:05, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
• Remove: It looks strange, and there are many better things to base image placement on, like trying to get images to face the text (Like in Carnotaurus). It is essentially useless if you have good taste of where images should go. Reid,iain james (talk) 15:20, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Reid, can you tell me what looks strange? Look at Douglas MacArthur#Chief of staff. This advice says to put that image where it is, not immediately after the ===Chief of staff=== subheading. Do you think that image looks strange in its current place, but woud stop trying to look strange if you put the image immediately after the subheading? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:05, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
    • For me, if images are placed on the left, especially if there is a short paragraph, it tends to disrupt the section headers and move them over. I tend to dislike this, unless it looks okay with the format of the article. Iainstein (talk) 21:37, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
      • Iainstein, are you talking about the header above or the header below the left-aligned image? It shouldn't affect the ones above it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:41, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
• Replace with WP:ACCESS for consistency. All images should be aligned right for the sight impaired, unless there is a compelling reason. In a classroom, it enables real-time class participation both in acquisition of topics and in reading comprehension speed of the written text.
  Generally left aligned is used when text is not long enough to support two images, so they are split left and right. Guttering does not work on multiple browsers. General image limit should be one image per 300 words or so except for gallery articles to conform with GA articles. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:42, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Accessibility is the purpose of this rule. The advice is specifically about ===Level 3=== subheadings, which do not have a horizontal rule under them. People with dyslexia and other conditions find it more difficult to locate the first word in a section if there is an image "blocking" it. Most of us won't notice the slightly greater amount of searching our eyes do, but some disabled people definitely do. If you ban left-aligned images (WP:Good article criteria do not have any restrictions on the proportion of images, by the way), then it becomes obsolete, but while they are allowed, this rule improves accessibility. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:05, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
    • But alternating images left and right improves accessibility. When all the images are on the right, it creates a wall of text effect where the start of every line on the left looks identical. This is more intimidating to dyslexics and more difficult to read. Alternating images left and right breaks the text into more manageable blocks, see for example [2]. Furthermore, in a wall of text, some readers can have difficulty in scanning from one line to the next down, and their gaze can bounce back to the start of the same line or the next line up or a different line on the page, and the text becomes "jumbled". However, say there is a picture of a man on the left: now when they've finished the line by the man's head, their gaze is directed to the line by the man's neck, and then the line by the man's shoulder, etc. This helps them through the text: the images on the left provide visual cues that can be used to identify the start of the next line down. Dyslexia style guides, such as [3], invariably recommend left justification for text, but I've never seen one that says the text should not be left-justified against an image, and they often recommend breaking the text up with images and using images to help locate information. DrKiernan (talk) 08:18, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
      • Yes, alternating images can be helpful. I am not advocating that they be banned, or even discouraged. However, placing an image exactly where the eye expects to find text, in a place with no visual element to help you find the first word of the text (because we do not choose to have a horizontal rule for level 3 subsection headings), is not one of those helpful moments. Under this rule, you can still have left-aligned images. You are only supposed to avoid them in the sole and fairly rare case of starting a ===Level 3=== (notice the presence of three equals signs) subsection with an image. I'd guess that this affects less than 1% of articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:41, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
• Remove. In fact I thought it had already been removed, and I ignore it anyway. It often makes sense to left-align an image directly under a section heading; I'm particularly thinking of things like ground-floor plans of country houses for instance. Eric Corbett 16:18, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
• Remove. Per my comments above (" This is pretty much just a style issue that should be dealt with on an individual basis."). FunkMonk (talk) 16:36, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
• Remove. I am not insensitive to the needs of those with disabilities, but surely we should be finding technical fixes to assist with those issues rather than creating protocols that detract from the quality of articles. Ben MacDui 17:21, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Can you give an example of how it "detracts from the quality of articles"? Would Douglas MacArthur#Chief of staff be higher quality if the left-aligned image were the first thing in that section? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:41, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
• Comment. I have put a notice on the WikiProject Accessibility talk page, pointing people to this discussion. I myself am somewhat in favour of removing this part of the guideline, but I think the best approach is to get accessibility-minded editors to weigh in before a final decision is made. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 18:07, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
• Remove - the blanket rule does not work in all cases and is better addressed on a per-article basis. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:19, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
• Remove, better left to the editors on the page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:59, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
• Question: When I was originally slapped upside the head for disobeying this rule (probably in 2006 or 2007), at the time I was told that doing this caused some sort of horrible problem in certain browsers for some technical or accessibility reason - not the one noted above - but one I have since forgotten. It wasn't an issue before a level three heading or in the middle of a level three subsection, though. So who remembers what this technical issue was and has it been resolved? As an aside, I disfavor banning left-aligned images, there are a lot of good reasons to use them, decent graphic layout and design being the big one for me - all right-aligned images in a long article looks cruddy. Montanabw^(talk) 23:34, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
• Modify – While I agree that we should not be banning left-aligned images altogether under a level 3 heading (or any level heading for that matter), I still think the preference in that position is right-aligned, unless the situation is better suited for left-aligned. I realize from all the feedback above and in past discussions that there are and will be plenty of exceptions (e.g., short section, images are stacking up to the right, etc.). However, when the section is long enough and has multiple images, it does look better to stagger them right then left, and not the other way around. The guideline could be rephrased to reflect that. Instead of just "avoid", it could be "try to avoid", and/or "use left-aligned images sparingly". That way, it's still a matter of preference but with some encouragement to keep them to the right when immediately under a section header. My 2¢ anyway. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:03, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
• Remove I usually alternate my images L-R-L-R, and so forth. Image columns look bad. BlueSalix (talk) 00:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
• Comment: "Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men" - apparently attributed to Douglas Bader - would seem to be the right attitude here. There is an accessibility issue (although I do have a horizontal line under level 3 headings courtesy of h3 { border-bottom: dotted 1px #DDD; } in my monobook.css) but it's a hinderance, rather than a bar. I'd certainly prefer to run images R-L-R or put the first L image a little way into the section, but there will be times when you don't do that for reasons of space or aesthetics. If this guidance is to remain, then in my humble opinion it needs to be understood as only a suggestion as to how we should arrange images, all other things being equal. --RexxS (talk) 19:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
• Replace with a suggestion to right-align instead. The accessibility issues normally follow the left alignment (i.e. the start of the line). Style guidelines have exceptions; where there's a good reason to, an article may always depart. But in the absence of any other reason, accessibility is important enough to make right the default. (A paragraph down would also fix, but I think right is the more practical advice.) Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 23:59, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
• Remove Left aligning is often necessary (for stacking, for images where people are looking to the right) and sometimes the only place to fit it is directly under the heading. --Loeba (talk) 15:32, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
• Modify to include reference to WP:ACCESS as suggested by TheVirginiaHistorian. Even if it's kept as it is, the guideline is not a bad one; however, it would be better to educate our editors in what works best for more readers. yoyo (talk) 02:19, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• What does WP:ACCESS say specifically? DrKiernan (talk) 08:27, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I must defer to DrKiernan. It may be I am remembering a complaint from a student in class. WP:ACCESS#Images says, “Web accessibility is the goal of making web pages easier to navigate and read. While this is primarily intended to assist those with disabilities, it can be helpful to all readers.” 1. Images should include and alt attribute… 2. In most cases, images should contain a caption… 3. Where possible, charts or diagrams should have a text equivalent… 4. Detailed image descriptions…should be placed on the image description page 5. Images should be inside the section they belong to… It may be I read the preference for right aligned in a See also article, but I do not recall, so I must defer. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:31, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: I'd also like to see the guideline give a useful - that is, immediately usable - reference to, or incorporate, another guideline: one on the relevant graphic design considerations. But such may not (yet) exist ... ? Perhaps the following text, pinched from User:RexxS above, then tweaked, would be a useful starting point? "Usually, run images right-left-right-left; or put the first left-aligned image a little way into the section. However, there may be times when you do something else, for aesthetic reasons." yoyo (talk) 02:19, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
• Further Comment: I've just skimmed the section below titled Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images#Clarification on justification, "sandwiching" which seems to have been last edited a month ago. It now seems to me that much of that (inconclusive)discussion provides better alternative wordings for a guideline on image placement. For the impatient or busy: read the LAST proposal first! So please take a moment to see whether you prefer the options outlined there. Thanks! yoyo (talk) 02:40, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

The text in that proposal is actually the same wording that existed before this discussion started. Then DrKiernan, on the basis that someone changed it without consensus more than a year ago, reverted back the original wording. That proposal below would undo DrKiernan's revert. Personally, I think some form of the guideline should remain, perhaps as a recommedation as opposed to a requirement. That would help alleviate situations where editors are left-aligning images for no good reason at all, giving us something we can direct them to when editors disagree and/or are reverted. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:07, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• Remove, not really seeing the use or value for this given the comments above. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:11, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Yeezus image placement

In the above articel at the Promotion section, there are two images placed simultaneously, which is sandwiching the text, should one of them be removed and placed at a different location or we use the {{multiple images}}? Or is it fine to leave it as it is. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 14:07, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Image ratio

Regarding "In general images may be of any ratio appropriate to the subject material. In the case of portraits used in infoboxes or lists of people then portrait-aligned images of the golden ratio are preferred," do contributors here feel that the golden ratio is best. See:

• Info box at Duncan Pitcher
• Duncan Pitcher in List of Royal Flying Corps generals

For examples. Greenshed (talk) 20:16, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Pertinence and encyclopedic nature: Non-Lead Photographs

Is it possible to get more clarification on what are the best/most appropriate images for photographs other than lead? For example, there's a mini edit war over on Petro Poroshenko's page over an image of him at a fairly important meeting in which you can only see his head. There appear to be quality issues as well, but it got me wondering - would a photograph of a person that doesn't show the person well be appropriate if it showed an event important to their life? Or does the policy cited in the Gloria Steinem example apply to the entire article, not just the lead? My instincts tell me that once you have a few good pictures of the biography subject, documenting events in that person's life may help the article if they do fit the other criteria for inclusion.

What kind of guideline should we be using when figuring out how many pictures to include in an article? It's clear that "You should always be watchful not to overwhelm an article with images by adding more just because you can," but is there an amount of picture-less text at which we should strive to be breaking up the text with images? I don't know if I am missing somewhere else these questions are answered, but I thought a little more explanation might make this section a bit more flushed out for those of us clueless as to what style is best. -Lciaccio (talk) 16:07, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Splitting sentences

Having just noticed edits to Forth Bridge and Tay Rail Bridge, both of which placed an image into the middle of a paragraph (in one case, in the middle of a sentence), I find that this page doesn't have any guidance against doing this. If the image has either |thumb or |frame, or any of the location options, it causes the paragraph to be terminated and a new paragraph started after the image, which interrupts the text flow, and that has accessibility issues. I've fixed the two pages, but I think that we need a guideline about this. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:55, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I've added a couple of sentences as an introduction for MOS:IMAGELOCATION, guiding editors not to attempt to place images inside paragraphs. The problem of having the alt text appearing inside a block of text potentially applies to screen readers, text-only browsers and anyone who has turned off images in their browser (perhaps on a low-bandwidth connection), so I've tried to summarise those cases concisely.

Feel free to amend, revert, or otherwise improve my effort. --RexxS (talk) 12:48, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Just confirming that this would be very confusing for screen reader users like myself, as it would completely and utterly break up the flow of the sentence or paragraph for us if an image was placed in the middle of it. Graham87 15:07, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

BLP Lead Image Guidelines?

Are there any guidelines about what images would be best to use in infoboxes or leads of BLPs? I typically see portrait photos, but when someone changes an image, I'd love to have a policy/guideline to point to. For example, I reverted this edit because the previous image was a well-lit, high quality, neutral POV, fairly recent portrait shot (which seems ideal to me) and the new image was good quality, but the subject occupied much less of the frame and was a little less neutral POV. Anyway, I think it would be useful to enumerate some "best practices" for lead images if it hasn't been done already. If it hasn't been done, I'll gladly start a new discussion about adding such. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:02, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Anyone? I'll take silence as an okay to add my own guidelines as a bold edit. Wanted to start discussion before that though. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:58, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I see no reason to expand on WP:LEADIMAGE. DrKiernan (talk) 07:32, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Image captions and full stops/periods

When should an image caption end in a full stop/period? I notice that today's FA does both, so I was wondering what the rule was? It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 10:55, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

If the caption forms a complete sentence, then it should end in a stop. If it's not a sentence, then it shouldn't. DrKiernan (talk) 11:15, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Forms a sentence = contains a verb? It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 11:48, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Not necessarily; "Northwest exposure showing construction of the Pentagon" contains a verb but isn't a sentence because the verb is nonfinite. DrKiernan (talk) 12:56, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

@It Is Me Here: See MOS:CAPTION. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:29, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Punctuation in captions is covered in depth here: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Captions#Formatting_and_punctuation Sudopeople (talk) 18:13, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Use of famous people or paintings in ledes of weakly related subjects

Have noticed a couple of these recently - Laughter opens with a photo of the actress Goldie Hawn laughing, and Face has a picture of the Mona Lisa. Is this an unnecessary distraction to the reader, when other images are available and a picture of an anonymous woman laughing would put more focus on the laugh (which is the article subject) and less on the person doing it (which is irrelevant to the article)? It seems like this might fall under the "allows readers to quickly assess if they have arrived at the right page" of WP:LEADIMAGE, but I'm not sure. --McGeddon (talk) 09:55, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Animated images in sidebar templates

am I the only one who finds this excessive? Frietjes (talk) 20:37, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

No, its a bit over the top.--SabreBD (talk) 20:55, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

It also shouldn't be thumbed. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:42, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't conform to MOS:ACCESS#Animations. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 00:07, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Location - sandwiching OK.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I intend to remove it, unless there's more than one objection soon, in which case I think an RFC should be used to more strongly determine consensus.--Elvey^(t•c) 20:46, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

The two comments quoted are on a different topic. Neither of the examples sandwich text between images: the images are alternated left and right, as recommended. Sandwiching has been deprecated since at least June 2006. Cramped text is more difficult to read and is unappealing visually. I think the advice should stay. DrKiernan (talk) 21:16, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

alternating is different from sandwiching. Frietjes (talk) 21:33, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

When I look at two featured articles, in the first, I see citations sandwiched between an image of Numismatist Farran Zerbe on the left and images of Lewis and Clark on the right. In other words, the entire References and bibliography section is sandwiched. When I look at the second again, I realize that it depends on window width; on my display, there is a ton of sandwiching; it's ~1920 pixels wide. If I shrink it to ~1280 pixels wide, there's a lot less sandwiching, but still 2-3 dozen lines are sandwiched. At any width over 830, the image of The Eagle Tavern forms one side of a sandwich. The first shows a ton of sandwiching at the narrower width too. And you're right - the quoted comment of Daniel Case is OT; sorry. Struck. DrKiernan: How wide is your window? --Elvey^(t•c) 23:17, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

My screen is clearly narrower than yours, and I think this may explain the discrepancy, not only in what we're seeing but also in our opinions. On wide screens, sandwiching is not going to be a problem because the text will not be cramped, and so there looks to be no reason for the advice not to sandwich. On smaller screens, however, the text will be broken up into far more blocks of different widths and sizes: that's when problems with readability occur. On the Eritrea article, I would say the two blocks of sandwiched text (in the Regions and Religion sections) look OK because in the first the text is a single block, so all the lines start and end on the same vertical lines, and in the second the images are the same size, so the text looks neat between them. However, the addition/rearrangement of images in the Culture section, regardless of screen width, created at least three blocks of text, starting and ending on different vertical lines. DrKiernan (talk) 08:15, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

DrKiernan: Agreed. I'm not going to open an RFC, though I would still support the change. If you can improve the formatting of Eritrea, I'd appreciate it; I think the Culture section will work much better than it does now with sandwiching that results in one block of text; it will bring the images near to the related text.--Elvey^(t•c) 09:58, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps some context will help. I think this edit of mine improved the Eritrea article, but it was reverted with the comment "format per mos". Did my edit introduce sandwiching? (It also moved two images above the 'hed', which Daniel Case said was appropriate in that OT quote).--Elvey^(t•c) 23:26, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I would like to object. Sandwiched text does depend on screen width, but it can be very difficult to read and this guideline is here with good reason.--SabreBD (talk) 23:33, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

@Elvey: Your edit of 20:24, 12 November 2014 went against MOS because you put images at the bottom of sections. MOS:ACCESS#Images says (point 5) "Images should be inside the section they belong to ... and not ... at the end of the previous section" --Redrose64 (talk) 00:15, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Yup; there's contradictory advice out there; IIRC, User:Daniel Case is an admin. IMO, screen reader software should adapt; it's a pattern it could easily recognize. --Elvey^(t•c) 02:11, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

@DrKiernan:: If you can improve the formatting of Eritrea, I'd appreciate it; I think the Eritrea#Culture section will work much better than it does now with images sized and placed on both sides so that it that results in one block of text; it will bring the images near to the related text. Are you willing to, or would you support or disagree with that?--Elvey^(t•c) 02:11, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

Hi! The first thing I thought to do was see if wired.com had large sections of text sandwiched between images in articles. I didn't have to go far; that's what I see on their home page. And in the second article I clicked on from the home page too, even more so, though the images on the right side are ads. Not an uncommon sight.--Elvey^(t•c) 22:43, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

My objection to the anti-sandwiching rule concerns mainly the case of images facing infoboxes. For instance, articles on minor states of the Holy Roman Empire are often rather short, but they are nevertheless "afflicted" with comparatively very lengthy infoboxes (and since infoboxes for former countries are narrower than normal, it makes those damn infoboxes even longer). Often, the infobox spreads over the entire length of the article, so that in order to respect the anti-sandwiching rule any image will have to be relegated to the bottom of the article, out of view. Now imagine when there are two infoboxes on top of each other....--Lubiesque (talk) 00:50, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Not necessarily. There are options like the {{stack}} template that allow you to place images next to the infobox along the right side of the article. You wouldn't be forced to dump them to the bottom. As for the larger issue of sandwiching text, I think it should be avoided when possible with the awareness that it is sometimes simply unavoidable. I don't believe this should be interpreted as a hard & fast rule against doing so. Perhaps the guideline could be improved, but it shouldn't be abolished altogether for the reasons mentioned above. --GoneIn60 (talk) 01:36, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

• I think the "rule" is unnecessary. Yes, two images should not be placed on the same line (that could be a rule), but I don't see why it should be "hard" to read text which is between two images that are parallel for a slight length on each side. FunkMonk (talk) 18:35, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Infoboxes are a different situation, I agree. You can't move them to the other side. The most you can do is write a longer intro and expand the article to force the beginning of the text down further to where image placement is less of an issue.

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

Another sandwiching discussion

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

WP:LEADIMAGE and Chloë Grace Moretz

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

Flipping an image

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

There's nothing shown at WP:EIS, and I've never seen it done, so the answer is almost certainly no. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:04, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Is it possible for one to be created?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

You would need to file a feature request at phab:. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:26, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Annotated image policy

If anyone has an interest in interactive annotated images, I've made a post on WP:IUP to discuss when wikilinked image annotation is appropriate. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 02:44, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Setting an image size or using default

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

We recommend that users not set image sizes as to allow default thumbnail settings to work and to work with the device's web browser (mobile interface different from desktop, for example). However, there are times that you want to display an image at a larger size, and we do allow pixel sizing as needed. However, another option is to consider the "upright" parameter if we are talking about an image that is not, generally, in landscape orientation. --MASEM (t) 05:14, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I normally directed people to MOS:IMAGES#Size and WP:IMGSIZE, although the wording is not as clear now as it was a year or so ago: both have become more of a "how to force the image size" rather than a "why not to force the size". --Redrose64 (talk) 12:25, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), Masem and Redrose64, the wording has not been as clear since February 3, 2015, because Adam Cuerden changed the "220px default" wording without discussion, stating, "This really isn't done anymore." Like I noted in that revert of his change, the 220px default matter is still done, and for good reasons -- browser complications. There is also the general factor that images that are too big can negatively affect the look of sections in articles (such as sections that are small). 220px is the default size, after all. The last thing we need are people generally setting the image size to 300px or to 450px, as in this case at the Gone Girl (film) article, or higher. It's that huge image size at the Gone Girl (film) article that brought me back to the "220px default" guideline; I was about to cite it, as I've often done, and then saw that it was removed. I have this guideline on my WP:Watchlist, but I somehow overlooked Adam Cuerden's change. Flyer22 (talk) 03:10, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with your revision (that is, undoing Adam's change). We do want to avoid setting absolute pixel sizes - we have tools to make screen-flow layouts work well with relative sizing (eg that's the purpose of "upright"). Once in a while it is needed, but that's an exception. --MASEM (t) 03:18, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't thinking about that comparatively minor change. I was thinking about the substantial changes that occurred on 27-28 May 2014. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm returning to this section to ask: Shouldn't we note something in MOS:IMAGES#Size and MOS:IMAGELOCATION about why the defaults are preferred, something along the lines of what Masem said above? Right now, when editors are redirected to those sections, they don't get a good idea of why the defaults are the general rule; they are simply told that they are the general rule. Flyer22 (talk) 01:10, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Image layout

FYI

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Kobe_Bryant#Image_layout to reach a consensus on the layout of images. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 17:53, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Disagreement over image at Jamie Dornan

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

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

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

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

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

Image overload

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

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

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

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

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

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

The page currently contains the following:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lead image

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

{{Images}}

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

Left placement - inaccurate guidance

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Parenthesis

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

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

Band timeline images

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

Opinions requested

Please see discussion at Talk:Harley-Davidson XR-750#Gallery usage. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:12, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

New stuff about border on images

Hi, I recently imported some tips from Help:Visual file markup#Border help page to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images#Border. Well, it's not a new thing on Wikipedia. I posting it here just to inform about this addition. Cheers! --Rezonansowy_akaRezy (talk | contribs) 00:46, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification.

I hope you don't mind that I shortened it slightly and replaced the 'outdated fixed width in px syntax' in the Japanese flag example with relative sizing using 'upright=factor'... BushelCandle (talk) 02:39, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

It looks good on both things. Hope this guideline will be helpful. Thanks! --Rezonansowy_akaRezy (talk | contribs) 02:48, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

@BushelCandle: I only changed back disc to circle. I think this is better to describe geometrical shapes. --Rezonansowy_akaRezy (talk | contribs) 15:01, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

How to use wiki markup to make a colored border around a single image?

Example. Thanks.--Парис "Анима" надаль (talk) 07:26, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

@Парис "Анима" надаль: This is a talk page for discussion the Manual of Style, this is not a help page. Try asking WP:T/Q or WP:HELPDESK. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:09, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

The options for how to format images here are described at Wikipedia:Extended image syntax, but although there is a "border" option it doesn't have any parameters and there doesn't seem to be a way to choose the color of the border. It would also be possible to include the border in the image file before uploading it, but probably a bad idea. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:23, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I noticed your editsum. The first response was more helpful because it attempted to help educate the OP about the talk space landscape, which is important. In the long run, knowing where the best resources are is far more valuable than the answer to any individual question, and the best way to learn about those resources is to actually use them. Teach a man to fish. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:56, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I cried because I had no wifi... until I met a man who had no browser. EEng 07:28, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

You don't think educating the OP about the wikipedia space landscape is equally as important? —David Eppstein (talk) 05:58, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand the question. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:13, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

The OP was asking about wiki image syntax. To get this far, they had obviously learned something about Wikipedia namespace, but not enough to find the right page (we have the MOS Image page, the image uploading policy, three or four help pages, and who knows how many essays, so the confusion is understandable). I pointed them to a wikipedia namespace location where they could learn about wiki image syntax, in the (perhaps misguided) opinion that they were having difficulty navigating the wikipedia namespace and needed a little help making that last step from here to there. Vanjagenije told them "go back to the start and try again, you can't get there from here". So, I'm confused why you think that was actually helpful. It didn't look helpful to me. But maybe it's just that we had different impressions of the OP's expertise — I thought they were someone who already knew about wikis and where to find information about them, but just needed a little more specific navigation to the right page — like someone who is driving in an unfamiliar neighborhood and stops to ask for directions, but is close to where they are trying to go and does know how to drive. Vanjagenije's answer seemed to me the sort of thing that would be appropriate only for a complete newbie. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:37, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Do I have to turn the hose on you two? EEng 07:28, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

The regular responders at the Help Desk are very knowledgeable and would likely be able to provide the same guidance you did. Teahouse too, probably. The difference is that your answer left the OP without the knowledge that those two places are the best places to start with any how-to question. The OP clearly did not know that yet, or they would have gone there.
Your type of answer also reinforces the misuse of project talk pages. These pages are for discussion of improvements to the associated project pages, per the prominently placed and highlighted instruction at the top of each such page. If the community feels that this organizational structure is merely bureaucratic noise to be ignored, the community should change the instructions accordingly. I don't believe they do. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:41, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

As it seems can't even try to be helpful to a passerby here without stirring up far more heat than light, I am removing this talk page from my watchlist. You can ping me if for some reason you need my attention here, but I think there are already enough cooks. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:45, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

px–upright equivalence table?

Do I recall that someone offered to create one? It would be a useful addition to the policy page. Tony (talk) 23:33, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Already there [4], but since maybe it's not visible enough in a footnote, here it is moved to the main guideline [5]. Comments? EEng 00:12, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Inline images

I undid this change as inline images are a different matter from those running alongside prose. Relative sizing does not work here because the user's font does not scale with their selected thumbnail size. Instead, it should be aimed to have inlines approach 12px (the default font size for most of WP's skins if you don't play with CSS) as to avoid overly-tall or tiny images, that can result from a mismatch of font size and thumbnail default size. Or to put it this way, while relative sizing works great when we have only one major variable in play, the user's default thumb size, it doesn't work well when there are two, and it's better here to use hard pixel counts to avoid the variations. --MASEM (t) 00:12, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. BushelCandle (talk) 00:38, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

• I agree that px, rather than upright, is the more common use case for inline images, because they're cheek-by-jowl with text. EEng 01:06, 17 February 2016 (UTC)