Talk:List of the Mesozoic life of Wyoming

Move protection

@BD2412:. Also, could you please quit move protecting these articles/hassling me about disambiguation links? I can't know which articles have disambiguation links until DPL bot catches them, and DPL bot only searches article space so you'll just end up pointlessly move these back and forth over nothing. Abyssal (talk) 20:18, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

RfC image display format

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.

The consensus of this discussion favors mostly using individual images. There is some openness to a "hybrid" approach where some images are grouped to allow more images to be used without extending the vertical length of the article. Presumably any specific instances of grouping would need to be considered on a case-by-case basis if there is further controversy over them. --RL0919 (talk) 17:46, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

---

Our lists of prehistoric life by US state require a lot of images since most prehistoric life will be unfamiliar to most readers. I've been reformatting the way images are displayed on these articles using multiple image templates hoping to minimize visual clutter and distraction from the main text while maintaining an informative quantity of images. That being said, there are potential drawbacks. On the Cenozoic life of Washington state talk page @Kevmin: disagreed with the aforementioned approach, saying:

I see that the images are being grouped into tiny little mutiple image boxes. I have to say I'm not a fan of the results, which are hard to see images, seemingly large blocks of text, and massive amounts of white space in the list again. The simple one image per box format filled the article better and made the images much more accessible.

Since the recent changes proved controversial, I wanted to raise a discussion about the best way to display images in these articles. I moved the discussion here because this article was already completely redone in the newer style. Examples of previous styles can be found at:

• The original style
• The previous style with use of wider 2 or 3 image multiple image templates.
• The current style with heavy use of a narrower-widthed multiple image template.
• Another style with heavy use of a wider multiple image template.

Any or none of these might provide a good reference point on how to proceed. How do you think we should display images on these articles? Abyssal (talk) 19:15, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

@Abyssal: Whom do you expect to have see the discussion here? If anything this should be taken to the relevant wikiprojects.--Kevmin § 06:09, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I've notified WP:Paleo. I started the RfC first because this is about graphics and formatting rather than science content so I was aiming for more of a lay audience. Abyssal (talk) 14:59, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Not only is it perfectly acceptable for Abyssal to open an RfC, it is one of the primary dispute resolution tools community members are expected to avail themselves of if they have reached an impasse. WikiProjects are merely places to organize tasks and request help with content efforts, and they have no special purview over content their members consider within their wheelhouse--see WP:Advice pages. That's always the case, but additionally in this case there isn't really any connection between specialized knowledge related to the article's topic and the question here: whether or not to place images in individual or grouped frames is as close to a pure formatting issue that an experienced Wikipedia editor can put forward an informed opinion on as you are ever going to get. The RfC is impeccably neutral and provides a clear and concise inquiry and I presume the persons Abyssal intends to have view the discussion is the selection of random, uninvolved editors whose opinions the tool is meant to solicit. Snow ^{let's rap} 08:00, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

• Original format/solo image frames and captions. To be honest, I'm not sure how much list articles benefit from extensive image use on the side, but among the options here, this approach makes the best use of space, presents the highest resolution images and allows each image to be covered with it's own captions. It's the simplest option to implement and makes for the cleanest look--albeit one that still looks somewhat awkward. Honestly, I think for a list article, the best option might actually be one long frame with all images formatted to the same width within it and captions in-between. But that's not presently an option presented within the RfC inquiry. Snow ^{let's rap} 08:05, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
• Comment: I've added another example style with a wider usage of the multiple image template so the pictures aren't so crowded and the combined captions don't look like huge textwalls. Abyssal (talk) 14:48, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
• Individual images Unless the images begin to take up too much vertical space (where then we could begin grouping related taxa into boxes), it makes much more sense to keep the photos separate and prevent any unnecessary questions of why we have a bison grouped with a leaf. I much prefer the visual aspect of something like Hell Creek Formation where the individual images sit directly next to their taxon in the list, and if we can emulate something like that here I would be all for it. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 15:04, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

  @IJReid:@Snow Rise:One of the biggest problems with only using individual images that it's common for especially notable and interesting taxa to be clustered too closeley for them to fit. For instance it's common on these lists for mastodons (Mammut), mammoths (Mammuthus), and the ground sloth Megalonyx to be textually in close proximity and often these are among the highest priority for illustration in the entire list. Similar problems can occur at places on the list with common scientific affices like names starting with Eo- or Palaeo-. Without a multiple image template we'd have to omit many important illustration for space reasons. Abyssal (talk) 15:22, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

  There is potentially room here for a hybrid approach: use mostly single images up to the point that the column of images is longer than the the rest of the content for the article (as determined by the most standard widescreen resolution), and at that point begin to double-up/group similar images here and there, as necessary. And remember, this is a list article, so clearly not every possible relevant image (and not even every possible high-quality image) is going to fit at the end of the day; a handful of double-ups is permissible to squeeze in a few more images without dragging this side bar gallery thirty inches below the end of the references, but at some point this becomes an WP:ACCESSIBILITY issue for our readers on mobile devices and/or slower internet connections--there's already more than 125 images on this article, which I think is a bit of a concern for its main function, which is not as a gallery. As for the notion of grouping the majority of images into clusters and leaving large portions of blank space between them, I think we can see there is an emerging consensus here that such an approach is not the most sensible one, and I expect that trend will hold as more respondents reply to the RfC. Still, there is some unexplored middle ground here. Snow ^{let's rap} 21:55, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

• Individiual image, as used at List of the Cenozoic life of Washington (state) which i have reinstated for now as an example of a single image, well referenced List of... --Kevmin § 15:38, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

  The problem there is that the images in that article extend beyond the refs section and the end of the article by about a foot and a half on a standard monitor. That's not desirable either. There's a compromise solution here, which is to aim at getting as many of the images in as possible within the length of the rest of the content in the article, then judiciously doubling/grouping up a handful of images that are like-topic in some way to squeeze a few more images in, and removing that which is redundant or there's just not room for. You both seem to want to keep as many images as possible, but both of your approaches are too all-in and cause issues as a consequence. If you combine those two approaches, I think you'll be able to manage to accommodate the maximum number of images with the smallest number of formatting issues. Though I do think the ultimate number of images should still be brought down a bit. Snow ^{let's rap} 23:10, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - Summoned by bot. I use a wide monitor, and the images are so far to the right, no matter which version is used, it's difficult to associate the images with the text. I'm not a wiki-text design expert but isn't there a way to put the images closer to the text? I looked at various lists but can't find any where images are included so extensively. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:23, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
• Hybrid approach (Summoned by bot) – I was originally going to !vote for single image, until I read Snow's hybrid approach, which I think is manifestly better. Great suggestion. Mathglot (talk) 02:55, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
• Individual. The use of images appears to be rather excessive. The random grouping of unrelated images is concerning. And we should be extremely cautious about assuming how it's going to display. Pages automatically reflow their content to fit the reader's device. I'm not sure how well the grouped images will work on mobile or other small format displays. Shifting off-topic a bit from the RFC, these state lists seem questionable to me in themselves. This list is already painfully long, and it's only going to get worse over time. I can easily imagine the list expanding by a factor of ten or even a hundred as scientists discover and catalog an almost unbounded number of species. It's bordering on INDISCRIMINATE and NOTCATALOG. This isn't a topic area I have much familiarity with - I would consider it a good idea if some editors from a relevant wikiproject gave some input on whether these articles and content-structure were necessary or appropriate. Alsee (talk) 05:34, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

@Alsee:These lists are pretty typical WP:Standalone lists with similar scopes and formats to others on related topics, like those in Category:Lists of fauna of Wyoming or the List of dinosaur genera. You're correct that this list is especially long, but that's mainly because Wyoming is such a fossil hotspot. You're also correct that it's likely to grow in the future but this growth is likely to be very slow because the list should already include nearly every relevant fossil discovered in the last ~200 years. If you still feel strongly that it should be split, I could easily divide it by geological period into Lists of the Triassic, Jurassic, and Cretaceous life of Wyoming. I haven't created lists like that mainly out of conservatism regarding the number of articles created for this series, but I'm open if consensus supports it. Abyssal (talk) 16:31, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

• Hybrid Approach Snow's hybrid approach Seems more appealing in my opinion. --NikkeKatski [Elite] (talk) 12:22, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Current format

I've reverted back to before the multiple image template was implemented and redone it with only individual images. What do you all think? @IJReid: @Kevmin: @Snow Rise: Abyssal (talk) 14:20, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I have no issue with the current format. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 14:46, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I also have no issues with the current format.--Kevmin § 15:17, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

"Hybrid" format

This RfC has run its course and it looks like there is a serious minority supporting a "hybrid" approach instead of a strong consensus for individual images. I was hoping supporters of this approach like @Elitematterman:, @Mathglot:, and @Snow Rise: could clarify what they think it would look like when implemented in the articles so we can make a final decision Abyssal (talk) 14:25, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, I do think my descriptors above are pretty good at detailing what I think the end product would look like, but if it is helpful to you I will add how I would go about the process of constituting a version combining those elements, taken from both previous versions. First, I would figure out roughly how many images you could fit into the article without extending the image content/column below the bottom line of the main (pre-reflist) text of the article. If it works well enough with the images (and it should), I would also make the vertical size of each image identical, with the horizontal width being the dynamic dimension in terms of pixel length. I would then pick a number of images from the existing pool matching that figure and add them in to a new draft/sandbox version of the article, adding or removing a couple as necessary at the end to make the termination of the column consistent with the end of the article--the nice thing about a list article is that, unlike a prose article, it will often format similarly in a vertical fashion across many different standard computer screen resolutions.

I would then pick about 25-75% of the remaining images that you found most vital (but in any event, a number not to exceed the number already in the article after assigning one image per row) and add them in as well, using double and maybe the occasional triple boxes. I would arrange these images in simple horizontal rows per line (that is, with all remaining images conforming to the same standard vertical length already established), without using more complex stacked boxes, since this will result in images too small to be much use, especially on smaller screens; meanwhile, there is plenty of lateral real-estate. Try to combine images wisely per phyla, but in any event, the 1-3 image max per line/row will help in reducing out a few of the more redundant entries--and indeed, I'm not saying that a whole lot should go, but certainly there are a few reasonable cuts to be made. At the end, if you follow that process, you will have what I had in mind when I proposed a hybrid approach: a column of images, uniform in vertical size, each of which might also be a part of a row extending leftward from the right margin (said row not to exceed three images in length) with content organized together roughly by taxonomic relatedness, but also with an effort to align with the entries on the list, where possible. The images would all terminate consistent with the end of the listed content itself. I hope that's helpful! :) Snow ^{let's rap} 08:29, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

@Snow Rise:I'm not sure it's possible to ensure that images all have the same vertical length. Abyssal (talk) 20:59, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't say that it's absolutely critical that they do, though I do think it would improve the cleanness of the format. Can I ask why that seems problematic to you? I have quite a bit of experience formatting visual elements in articles, perhaps I can help you find a technical work-around. But if it doesn't work fro some reason, the format could still easy be applied without such uniformity being strictly necessary. Snow ^{let's rap} 21:38, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

@Snow Rise:Do you mind whipping up a demo version of the page (or at least a section or two) yourself? Abyssal (talk) 22:38, 2 June 2019 (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.