Talk:List of the Cenozoic life of Washington

Tiny little image boxes
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.-- Kev min  § 17:17, 25 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I think using the image boxes keeps the right side of the page a lot cleaner looking and I intend to shorten the captions so they're not so wordy and repetitive. I've also been uploading cropped images of a lot of the images used in these files would look better at a small size. I think this is the best way, but not having to reformat these would save a lot of work if everyone likes it the old way. We should probably get some outside opinions. I've already mostly done the Wyoming articles. Let me polish up one of them and then we can ask some other users what they think looks best. Abyssal (talk) 17:45, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Cleaner how so? The result as im currently seeing it is a very barren right side with sparse images packed into little boxes. White space should be avoided if possible as it looks empty.  Cropping could be needed if the subject is being lost in the image, but if its not it really isnt needed either. -- Kev  min  § 23:14, 25 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Let's take this to Talk:List of the Mesozoic life of Wyoming. I've started a RfC and that article is more complete and better shows the merits or lack thereof of the way the multiple image template is used to any third parties who want to weigh in. Abyssal (talk) 00:37, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Image sizes
While working on these lists I've found it difficult to select and consistently apply upright scaling factors for images with different aspect ratios, so I decided to approach the problem mathematically. I decided that images with an aspect ratio of 1.5 should take the default scaling factor of 0.75 and developed two equations for images with narrower or wider aspect ratios. The curve for the tall, narrow images bottomed out around a scaling factor of 0.25 and the curve for wide images maxed out a bit below the maximum recommended image width in the manual of style. The new upright values often have weirdly precise decimal values because that's the output from the equations. Would you prefer a different approach? Abyssal (talk) 17:46, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I would, default upright will give as close to a consistent image width as possible, making for a MUCH cleaner looking page then the odd sizing that was implemented. As it was it gave a feeling of personal preference to certain images over others, and you have to keep in mind that no editor other then you will use your equations when adding or adjusting images.  Your method is not a feasible one.-- Kev  min  § 19:21, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll ditch the formula thing. I do think we need to be a bit more organized about which image aspect ratios should correspond to which scaling factors, though. I've been playing around in some sandboxes since we talked yesterday and I have a tentative suggestion for standards we could adopt. How about something like
 * AR 0.25-1 (Upright=0.5)
 * AR 1-2 (Upright=0.75) (default)
 * AR 2-4 (Upright=1)
 * AR 4-4.5 (Upright=1.25)
 * AR 4.5-5 (Upright=1.5)
 * AR 5+ (Upright=1.75)


 * I produced a mockup here. Abyssal (talk) 16:19, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * While a decent idea in concept, I dont think its something that can be maintained. If you and I are the only ones that know about it, it will immediately fail when someone else edits the images. thats why default "upright" is the best method, since that is the most common image size tool thats used on wiki at this point.-- Kev  min  § 19:41, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This kind of thing can be easily automated. Abyssal (talk) 19:55, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

RfC Image scaling factors in lists of prehistoric life by location
I've been compiling lists of prehistoric life by location for a while now. This article series contains a huge variety of images in all shapes and sizes. I think the articles are best served by displaying wide images with a >0.75 scaling factor and tall images with a lesser one. To keep consistency across the article series I proposed a list of standards for which scaling factors I thought images of differing aspect ratios would be best displayed at and a list of examples. Kevmin, this article's other main contributor, disagrees and seems to support maintaining the default scale factor for all images independent of aspect ratio. I just thought I would open an RfC to solicit outside perspectives on the ideal scaling factor(s) for displaying the images in these articles. Abyssal (talk) 22:18, 29 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I'd go for just  for all the images, so that they are all the same width and form a neat column to the right of the names. To test this out, search and replace   to   and then preview without saving. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:33, 30 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Example page. Abyssal (talk) 14:40, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * How easy would it be to avoid using the images with the most extreme aspect ratios? Do the lists have other species nearby that could be illustrated instead?-- John of Reading (talk) 17:24, 30 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Eh. So-so. It could be avoided in a lot of cases, but a lot of the time important taxa or individual specimens will have extreme aspect ratios so it would be difficult to rule them out entirely. We could also consider subtler changes in scaling factor for a more uniform appearance, fewer size categories for simplicities' sake, or a little bit of both. Abyssal (talk) 18:34, 30 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Support standard I am coming to this discussion from a request for comments and do not know much about this issue. I would prefer to apply a standard, but it seems that there is none, so instead of looking at this as an issue about one article, I would prefer to frame this as a proposal for a standard for sizing images of various aspect ratios. Since Abyssal drafted a standard, I support that as the draft of the new guideline as soon as it gets moved out of userspace and labeled appropriately. The draft as it is seems thoughtful and illustrative and I think is a great place to center conversation. The counterproposal - using default image size in all cases - is not currently well argued, and for lack of that argument, I am right now in favor of this draft guidance in general and applied in this case.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  12:30, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm glad someone removed the RfC tag, since this isn't a question "ready for primetime". When someone has a non-draft proposed standard, take it to WT:MOS (or WT:MOSIMAGES but "advertised" at WT:MOS; or even to WP:VPPRO and advertised at both of those other pages), with a new RfC tag, so people will see it. It really makes no sense to try to address this article-by-article.  —&thinsp;AReaderOutThataway&thinsp;t/c 09:26, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikilinks
This series of lists has a substantial number of wikilinks, a few of which (Actium, Agabus, Apion, Auleutes...) lead to unrelated topics with similar names to taxa. I've explored a few semi-automated ways of finding misdirected links but nothing I've found involves less effort than a manual scan. Does anyone have any bright ideas? Certes (talk) 01:06, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:32, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Leptomeryx and Hypertragulus.jpg

Orphaned references in List of the Cenozoic life of Washington (state)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of List of the Cenozoic life of Washington (state)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Greenwood2005": From Azolla primaeva:  From Pteronepelys:  From Klondikia:  From Sassafras hesperia:  From Nuphar carlquistii:  From Betula leopoldae:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:37, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:List of mountain passes in Washington (state) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 22:34, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:List of fauna of Washington (state) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 03:03, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Castaneophyllum note
There are two different taxa named Castaneophyllum. species:Castaneophyllum Jones & Dilcher, 1988 is an extinct morphogenus for Castanaea-like leaves, while Phylogeny section of Platanus details subgenus Castaneophyllum Leroy, 1983 containing the anomalous P. kerrii.
 * Im moving this here, as the two are both in use, but since they are used at different taxonomic levels, they are not in conflict, from what is found in the Platanaceous or Paleobotanical literature-- Kev min  § 17:50, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Kev min  § 17:50, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks! Taxonomy is not my strong suit, although I have created species articles. I came to this list because WikiProject Washington/Hot articles is on my watchlist. Peaceray (talk) 17:57, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * No worries, Its likely popped up again due to my additions to the list for missing Latah Formation taxa.-- Kev min  § 18:18, 20 November 2023 (UTC)