Talk:Pachygrapsus marmoratus

File:Pachygrapsus marmoratus 2009 G4.jpg to appear as POTD soon
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Pachygrapsus marmoratus 2009 G4.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on December 28, 2011. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2011-12-28. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks!  howcheng  {chat} 18:11, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Image
I see now that the solution I'm proposing has been tried before. However, I do see the "difference in dorsal aspect", and have previously found one of the editors to be opposed to the inclusion of relevant image material on a different article. Frankly, I don't see how the second image causes a problem when it's in the taxobox. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 13:00, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The article is pretty short, and as such there isn't room for a second image. Perhaps in the case where there was some vital feature that needed to be displayed, but that just isn't the case here. If readers want to see more images, they can follow the quite prominent link to the Commons. --Stemonitis (talk) 14:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The article is long enough to support both images in the taxobox, and there is enough of a difference to have both images. Judging from the amount of people that have added the picture to the article recently, there is consensus that the picture adds to the article. While you may not like it there, that is irrelevant. Please see WP:OWN, particularly 4.1.1. Clegs (engage in rational discourse) 13:10, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * This has nothing to do with ownership, and everything to do with Wikipedia's policies on images. None of the arguments presented have addressed that. Mistakes do not become correct merely through repetition, and any purported local consensus cannot over-rule the site-wide image policies. Your arguments are too vague to be useful; "the article is long enough", you say. I say it isn't. On my fairly ordinary screen, it forces the taxobox to overlap the reference list, which is a clear sign of too many images in the taxobox. You say "there is enough of a difference to have both images", but what are these supposed differences? To my (trained) eye, the differences are minimal, and are not in any way illustrative of the text. Every reason so far presented for including the second image has been demonstrably false. --Stemonitis (talk) 14:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Consensus to graphically show sexual dimorphism of species.
The image was added by User:George Chernilevsky, User:Papa Lima Whiskey 2, User:Dusty777 and User:Clegs all before my readdition of the image today. It's been strongly opposed by one editor, User:Stemonitis who has voiced his reasoning for the continued removal of the image even if its pretty clear the consensus is against him here and here. It's beginning to seem as if Stemonitis is following the pattern of WP:IDIDNTHEARYOU and very likely violating WP:3RR. Even slow edit wars are in violation of 3RR, and this is clearly multiple reverts. For biology representing sexual dimorphism of a species isn't a useless image, if the article doesn't discuss sexual dimorphism of these groups of crabs then it should, that doesn't exclude the fact that the images of the sexes ARE still relevant for the article. — raeky  t  10:24, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


 * See my talk page. You are wrong. If the sexual dismorphism is that relevant (it probably isn't), we would show a different image. Your input here, with its implied threats and assumptions of bad faith, is not helpful. You need to examine what images best illustrate the topic, which I have certainly done; I don't think you have. I did hear you, and I have considered your opinion, but it is wrong – straightforwardly wrong. --Stemonitis (talk) 10:49, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


 * And that heading you've put here is enormously misleading. As I have pointed out, this is not about showing the sexual dimorphism, since the image in question doesn't really show it very well (all the important details are ventral). It is about shoe-horning a potential featured picture into an article just so that it can keep it's little start. I'm all in favour of featured pictures of crustaceans – we don't have enough of them – but not at the expense of the integrity of the articles. This is an encyclopaedia, guys, not a photo gallery. --Stemonitis (talk) 10:54, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * For the record, Stemonitis, it's really hard to engage in a discussion about this when your first comment to every reply has been a variation on "You are wrong, I am right," especially since you rarely back it up with other than statements about your personal preference, tell us that we obviously don't know how to edit WP, and then follow that up telling us to assume your good faith. For examples, see [|here], [|here], [|here], [|here], [|here], and [|here] A little bit of tact, assuming our good faith, and being careful not to make statements that could come across as personal attacks would make it a lot easier for other editors to work with you. Clegs (engage in rational discourse) 07:58, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

As an outsider to this discussion, I have to say that I have looked carefully at both images (the dorsal surfaces of the male and female) and cannot see that as a pair they illustrate anything of any use whatsoever. There are colour differences in the markings but without any description I've no idea whether these are consistent within the species, and the variations are within the range typical of digital photographs without explicit colour management, in my experience.

Further, the article clearly does not follow the advice at MOS:IMAGES and WP:IMAGES since text is sandwiched between an image and the taxobox. But if I try to fix this by moving the offending image to the right, it will be well below the text. As the article stands, it's unarguable that the way its images are laid out is not in accordance with the MOS. Which should be retained is another matter, and one on which I have no particular view. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:15, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Having read Stemontis's comments, I am definitely now seeing the issue from his point of view. Yes, a discussion of/illustration of sexual dimorphism is going to be important to the article, but that does not mean that, by default, any picture of a male and any picture of a female are going to be useful. Instead, photographs or disagrams which specifically illustrate the differences are going to be more useful than two pictures which happen to be of creatures with different sexes. (Of course, if I was to speak from a FPC perspective for a second, I would say that EV was lower because the image failed to illustrate key differences. Quite what those differences are is unclear, as there is no discussion sexual dimorphism in the article, thus lowering the EV even further.) With the three images in the article now, it is clearly over-illustrated, but it otherwise a decent article. The image appears to be adding little, as it fails to illustrate dimorphism, but is actually detracting from the artice as it contributes to over-crowding. J Milburn (talk) 11:24, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Peter & J Milburn (should I just call you "J"?) – can I ask your opinions on the image with the barnacles and limpets? I'm not entirely happy with the image placement, but at least it has more EV than the contentious image. Should it stay? Is there another way of displaying it that doesn't cause sandwiching? I don't really want to have to work this article up to GA status just to fend off an edit war. Obviously, I'm happy for the article to have only one image, but I will gladly defer if the image of the ecology is thought to be important. --Stemonitis (talk) 11:30, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Here are three options; in all three I would remove the second image from the taxobox (the first looks better to me as a small image).
 * Remove the feeding image altogether. This is what I personally would do, because I don't think the feeding image is actually very good, both technically (very obvious flash reflections) and in terms of showing feeding happening.
 * Move the feeding image right. This prevents sandwiching but still cuts into the references.
 * Put the feeding image and the second taxobox image into a gallery or multiple image which the text doesn't wrap around. I don't particularly like this solution here, but it would be a compromise with those who want to keep both featured images.
 * Option 2 doesn't gain much, so I think the real choice is between 1 and 3. Either are better than what is there now. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:32, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * (You're welcome to call me J if you like- JM is also common. I don't mind.) I'd personally go with option 1, too. I agree with Peter that, sadly, the image isn't quite as good as it could be, technically or as means of illustrating the behaviour. Option 3 may sound like a reasonable compromise, but it would leave both "sides" unhappy- galleries usually make an article look worse, and, in any case, gallery images are not eligible for featured picture status. J Milburn (talk) 15:23, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks, both. I think option 1 is my preferred option, too. I will wait a while to see if any of the other contributors have any comments; otherwise, I'll implement option 1. --Stemonitis (talk) 16:55, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I think removing the feeding picture would be a good idea. However, I do think both taxobox images are useful in the article Clegs (engage in rational discourse) 07:32, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Long taxoboxes consistently cause problems in articles. Many articles don't (yet) have enough text to fill the space to the left of them and they cut into the references, which looks ugly and prevents multicolumn layouts working correctly. It's difficult to add an additional image to an article with a long taxobox without violating the MOS and sandwiching text between an image and the taxobox as is still happening here. So to have two images in a taxobox there has to be a very good reason. If this species were strongly sexually dimorphic and this was shown clearly in the two images, then there would be a case. Compare Lion and Tiger. The former has two images, since the sexes are obviously different in their secondary sexual characters; the latter does not. This article falls into the "Tiger" category; the two images do not illustrate striking sexual dimorphism any more than images of a male and female tiger would. The taxobox does not need two images. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:23, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. If we're going to have illustrations demonstrating sexual dimorphism (not that such a thing would really fit into an article of this length with the lack of detail in the prose) then we're going to be looking at diagrams, or at least photos taken from the appropriate angle (see Crab- most of the difference is typically in the abdomen, which is not illustrated from this angle). J Milburn (talk) 11:43, 14 April 2012 (UTC)


 * ✅. I believe that all the main participants have now seen this discussion, or have had ample opportunity to, and the consensus is for Peter coxhead's option 1, at least until the article grows noticeably longer. I have therefore implemented that course of action. Than you all for your input. --Stemonitis (talk) 05:39, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Crab (Pachygrapsus marmoratus).jpg to appear as POTD soon
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Crab (Pachygrapsus marmoratus).jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on June 2, 2018. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2018-06-02. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:56, 27 May 2018 (UTC)