User:Eraserhead1/sandbox

Proposal for fixing the image dislocation problem
Alright, let's do this the correct way here. The way I see it, having followed this issue for a very long time, the following solutions seem to be the ones likely to generate the most traction. Lets have a little straw poll/vote/non-vote/discussion over this, and see where consensus lies in how to handle this. Add your name to which option you support, feel free to not-vote multiple times. Add any other ideas or whatnot to the discussion section.

Option A: Do nothing

 * Keep the status quo, there is no problem with the way that ITN does the image placement now.
 * First choice. --BorgQueen (talk) 15:20, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Third choice Hobit (talk) 16:19, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * First choice.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 17:34, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Second choice, unless option B looks terrible, in which case first choice. Formerip (talk) 17:41, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Second choice. I think we can rely on judgment, as we have done in the past, to make exceptions where necessary. I'd rather see an approach that gives too much latitude than see an approach with not enough. --  tariq abjotu  18:24, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Second choice. The current arrangement can be a problem when the first item is about a person and the image is of a different person with a very different reputation (e.g., a news item about a mass murderer and an image of Mother Teresa). Otherwise, the current arrangement is fine. --Orlady (talk) 18:38, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Only choice. I trust readers to recognise the implications of the presence, or absence, of the word pictured. Kevin McE (talk) 21:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * First choice.  Spencer T♦ C 23:13, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * First choice. — howcheng  {chat} 02:57, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * First Choice. Eluchil404 (talk) 08:04, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * First and only choice. Having read this discussion, I'm still not convinced there's a problem. Newspapers (at least in the UK) routinely feature photos of celebs in bikinis alongside the front-page headline about massacres in Syria. It's sometimes jarring, but never confusing; I'd never assume the two items were related. By the same token, I doubt more than a tiny percentage of readers are genuinely confused by the ITN box - so confused that it doesn't even occur to them to scan the rest of the blurbs to see which one the picture relates to. 109.144.191.94 (talk) 10:47, 25 August 2012 (UTC) Addendum: not my only choice, also voting for Option D (also, signed in now). DoctorKubla (talk) 16:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * First Choice. --PFHLai (talk) 13:51, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * First and only choice. To be frank I am surprised that anyone has invested so much time and effort into so minor a perceived problem.  Despite the voluminous prose above I am like some other in still failing to see that any problem exists: BLP concerns simply don't apply for example.  A better way would be a quick opening paragraph to gain a straw poll of opinion.  As it is this issue has probably already consumed an order of magnitudes more time than it really deserves and I am reluctant to invest any more in it. The proposer claims to know where consensus is but admits not even he has bothered to for or at previous discussions. Crispmuncher (talk) 15:30, 25 August 2012 (UTC).
 * Only choice. Works perfectly fine in my opinion. --Tone 21:00, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Though, after some more thinking, I'd advise to be smart when choosing pictures so that we don't come into unwanted situations as mentioned above. Still, I believe it's possible to keep the image on top. --Tone 21:20, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Reviewing this dispute, I've now settled on this as my first choice. Kurtis (talk) 05:36, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Doing nothing is the reason the problem still exists and is brought up perennially. An adequate solution must be found, simply ignoring the issue yet again is not an option. – NULL  ‹talk› ‹edits›  00:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * First, very nearly only choice. Works perfectly fine. Courcelles 17:31, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * First and likewise nearly only choice. Jus  da  fax   07:54, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Option B: Let image float with blurb

 * The image should float alongside the blurb to which it belongs
 * First choice Khazar2 (talk) 15:15, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * First choice. – Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:28, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Second Third choice. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 15:41, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Second choice Hobit (talk) 16:19, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Last choice. Seeing this implemented temporarily earlier today, it looked terrible. --  tariq abjotu  16:21, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Third choice. It would be nice, but per above it would mostly look horrible in our current format.  Acroterion   (talk)   17:22, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I didn't see the demo mentioned. But this would be my first choice, unless it looks terrible. Formerip (talk) 17:37, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Fourth choice.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 17:38, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Second choice.  Imzadi 1979  →   17:53, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Third choice. In principle, this is a great idea, but from a practical standpoint I don't think it would work very well. --Orlady (talk) 18:40, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If technically possible, it's a no-brainer.  Hot Stop   22:48, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This option isn't clear in how to choose which image is shown and I can't find a link to the preview to see how it would look. Assuming this is only applicable when an image for the newest blurb is not available/suitable, I would support this idea.  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  00:03, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Unacceptable. With ITN sitting atop OTD, this will leave too much empty space under the last blurb. — howcheng  {chat} 02:55, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Second Choice. Eluchil404 (talk) 08:04, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Having thought a little more, I'm realizing this really is my first choice. Where BLP issues aren't in place, it's less important, but reflecting on it a little reminds me how many times I've been like "What on earth is that picture? It has nothing to do with that top blurb." It's just not intuitive to have to hunt for the "(pictured)" note. And (something I've commented before) the aesthetic issues simply don't convince me. Clarity and accuracy should always take precedence over appearance. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 09:40, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Not an awful choice, but I can't be the only one who gets tired of the same image for several days in a row, can I? Lady  of  Shalott  00:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * First choice. -- Activism  1234  00:25, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Not an option at all, this just looks horrible, and creates even MORE work to fix the template with each update. Courcelles 17:32, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Option C: The image and its associated blurb always stay at the top

 * Even if it isn't the most recent event, the blurb with the image stays at the top of ITN until it ages off or another more recent event with an image gets added.
 * Second choice -- Jayron  32  15:09, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Acceptable. – Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:29, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Third choice. This isn't ideal, but it would look better and cause fewer problems than floating the image would.  —David Levy 15:52, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Second choice.  Acroterion   (talk)   17:21, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sixth choice.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 17:43, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Third choice. Second, if there's some sort of highlighting to separate it from the remaining blurbs (that are purely in chronological order). --  tariq abjotu  18:26, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Second-to-last choice. @Orlady: It's true at the moment that all the blurbs are recent, but it isn't always like that. Formerip (talk) 18:28, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * First choice. All of the items in ITN should be fairly recent, so the distinction between the most recent and the next two or three items is generally not very large, anyway. --Orlady (talk) 18:34, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * First choice, per Orlandy above. This is the best option in terms of layout. It would also be a good incentive for editors to find images to illustrate ITN items. -- ELEKHHT 20:50, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * First choice by far. I believe that chronology is much less relevant than this discussion makes it, and that the most recent item with a suitable image should stay at the top. /Coffeeshivers (talk) 21:47, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * My favoured option. violet/riga [talk] 23:01, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't like this option, because it goes against the chronological order and gives the impression that we're favoring some stories over the others.  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  23:57, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Bad idea. This opens up the whole can of worms of reordering ITN .  A single simple rule, like "always chronological" is by far the best.  Eluchil404 (talk) 08:04, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - ITN should be chronological so readers can easily spot updates, not based on whether it has an image... Too complicated too, after how long should it be taken down? What if one ITN update has an image, and all subsequent ITN updates for the next 10 weeks don't have images?  Do we still keep the outdated image?  Not good. -- Activism  1234  00:25, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * ONLY choice. Picture should always be nearer the relevant story than to any other, picture should be near top of section to balance the look of the page, if at all possible section should have an image, more highlighting gets in the way of reading.... ALL of these concerns are addressed by this option. I really don't see the chronological argument as being especially forceful. Lest we forget, this isn't actually a news ticker. --Khajidha (talk) 15:41, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Distant second choice, but acceptable. Preserves the right "look" with the rest of the MP. Courcelles 17:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. Having the uncaptioned image against unrelated text is absurd. This option is as good as D and H. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:30, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Option D: Only the most recent blurb should have an image

 * Preserve chronological order of blurbs, and if the most recent blurb doesn't have an image, then ITN should not have any images
 * First choice -- Jayron  32  15:09, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Acceptable. – Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:30, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * First choice. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 15:40, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * First choice. An image isn't essential.  This also would reduce the frequency with which we display one for days on end.  —David Levy 15:52, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * First choice Hobit (talk) 16:18, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Third choice Khazar2 (talk) 16:21, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Second choice. It will actually lessen our workload a lot as well. --BorgQueen (talk) 16:36, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * First choice. It makes the most sense too, and we won't have to worry about person A's blurb being next to person B's picture, when person B's blurb is at the bottom where it might be missed. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:14, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * First choice: Pictures shouldn't be used as decoration. The images have a tendency to hang around too long otherwise. Julia Gillard was on the main page for weeks, it seemed.   Acroterion   (talk)   17:21, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It just makes sense to have the image featured on ITN being from the most recent news development. Kurtis (talk) 17:38, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That being said, if it's also the second or third development, I'm fine with that. I guess I'm basically saying that I agree with the format currently in use, but a bar should be set for biographical articles being featured. Kurtis (talk) 22:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Second choice.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 17:39, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * First choice.  Imzadi 1979  →   17:53, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Second choice: Prevents an image from overstaying its welcome, but there isn't always a suitable image for every blurb. This would make the choice of which blurb gets the image far more clear than it is now, though. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 18:32, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Fourth choice. There are a significant number of instances where the first blurb can't be illustrated that we'll practically get Option E with this. This also requires an unnecessary amount of upkeep. People might be less willing to post blurbs knowing they'll have to go through the often time-consuming effort to just change the picture. It could encourage people to remove the image altogether because they don't want to go through that effort. It could alternatively encourage people to post uninformative images just to keep an image there. In short, this is problematic. --  tariq abjotu  18:33, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Unacceptable. Most ITN items lack relevant free images, and this amounts to opting for no image most of the time. μηδείς (talk) 19:40, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Second choice. Good option that prevents undue weight on a particular item because of image availability. I see no issue with ITN not having an image from time to time, the main page is information heavy anyway. I find unhelpful overstating the rate of ITNs without image, and exaggerated comparisons with option E. The rule would be an incentive to find suitable images. -- ELEKHHT 21:01, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * An incentive to find images that otherwise wouldn't be posted in the section. It is not an exaggeration. I'd estimate that we'd be without a picture in the section about half of the time, and certainly more often than TFA (the only other section that omits pictures) goes without one. You disagree -- fine -- but it's a matter of the scale of problems. I don't think this image placement thing is a big problem most of the time. But going without an image in a section on a page that is already a bombardment of information is, and I'd rather not face that half of the time. --  tariq abjotu  21:22, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, disagree on multiple counts. First, not having an image "half of the time" is not the same for me as not using images at all. Second, adding an image IMO does not reduce the "bombardment of information". Third, the status quo is a problem because the image is what people see first, and the first blurb they read is the top one, thus is confusing each time the two do not relate. -- ELEKHHT 21:41, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Fifth choice. Only slightly better than not having any images at all. ITN would lose the benefit of images and the addition and removal of images would increase the burden of maintaining main page balance. --Orlady (talk) 21:47, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with "if the most recent blurb doesn't have an image, then ITN should not have any images". I think it is better changed to: if .., then the second most recent blurb should have an image floating next to it, if not available then the third and so on.  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  00:08, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Third Choice. Eluchil404 (talk) 08:04, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Second choice. If a floating image isn't acceptable, this is preferable. I would consider even no image preferable to one that isn't clearly placed next to its blurb. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 09:43, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * First choice. I don't think we should force people to read all of ITN to figure out what an image is. This also has the advantage of keeping the images "fresh"; I get bored with the same picture day after day. Lady  of  Shalott  00:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Second choice. -- Activism  1234  00:26, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * First choice. Images are in no way required, page placement has a far greater effect on drawing reader attention. We have no problem running the TFA without images when appropriate, there should similarly be no problem with ITN not having a picture when the top article doesn't have an appropriate one to use. – NULL  ‹talk› ‹edits›  00:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Second choice. Seeing this trialled on the main page, it doesn't look too bad. I suppose the pictures don't really add much, after all. DoctorKubla (talk) 16:34, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. We're "trialing" this on the MP right now, and it looks terrible. Completely disrupts the flow of the MP. Courcelles 17:34, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose.  Spencer T♦ C 08:47, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. Having the uncaptioned image against unrelated text is absurd. This option is as good as C and H. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:30, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Very often there is no good image available. Jus  da  fax   07:57, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Option E:Don't use images at all

 * ''(Added by User:Gomorro)


 * Never use an image to illustrate the ITN section
 * It seems to me that it's very rare that the top item in the ITN list ever corresponds to the image (which more often than not is down to the ban on non-free imagery on the Main Page). It also seems to me that there's no intuitive way to solve this. I have my doubts that readers even understand that items appear in chronological order, so I don't think it's realistic to expect them to know why some images are being kept at the top to be aligned with an image, while others drop down the list as new ones come in. So the natural question is, why is an image even needed if it causes this much bother? I hesitate to use the example of the BLP invocation that sparked this discussion, but if the basis of that is that readers of the Main Page are just too dumb or lazy to be able to recognise when an image relates to an item and when it doesn't, then what purpose are they actually serving? You cannot argue that the image is illustrating the item, if reader's aren't intuitively connecting the two when not placed side by side (and are ignoring/not seeing the 'pictured' note or the hover text over the image) So why not use no images at all? That's a simple and clean way to cut the Gordian knot here. It even has a benefit - more actual entries could be accommodated on the section because of the space they take up. Gomorro (talk) 15:47, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Penultimate choice. I don't think the "problem" is so bad that it warrants discarding images altogether. --  tariq abjotu  16:25, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Fourth choice. I suppose we don't need images, per se.  This seems like a "throwing out the baby with the bathwater" solution, but if we can't agree on anything else at all, perhaps that baby needed to go... -- Jayron  32  16:41, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Fifth choice.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 17:38, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Last choice. This seems to me like pretty much burn-at-the-stake level heresy. Formerip (talk) 17:43, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Last choice. Eye candy attracts readers (and some of the ITN images are great images); it would be dumb to get rid of it just because the eye candy doesn't always match the top article. --Orlady (talk) 18:47, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Unacceptable. This is throwing the baby and the bathwater into a woodchipper full of rabid rattlesnakes. μηδείς (talk) 19:37, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Please, no. Per Medeis.  Spencer T♦ C 23:14, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Fifth Choice. Eluchil404 (talk) 08:04, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No. Images are useful. Baby, bathwater... Lady  of  Shalott  00:10, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - no reason not to use images. -- Activism  1234  00:26, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Third choice. As per my comments in option D, images are not required and page placement is a more effective tool to draw reader attention than pictures. – NULL  ‹talk› ‹edits›  00:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Ruins the look of the MP to have an above=the-fold section as all text. Courcelles 17:36, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Option F: Only the most recent or second-most recent blurb should have an image

 * Similar to Option D -- preserve chronological order of blurbs, and if the most recent or second-most recent blurb doesn't have an image, then ITN should not have any images. In certain situations where the second blurb can be illustrated (e.g. the image for the second blurb is a person, and the top story is a mass murderer), there would also be no image at all
 * In most situations, I think this discussion is a solution looking for a problem. But I'm willing to meet halfway. Most of the time, the second blurb is also next to the image, and I wouldn't call it extremely unreasonable for someone to notice that. In most situations, the fact that the second, rather than the first, blurb is illustrated is also not a problem as well. Note, for example, that most people here have said the current image of Tripoli, despite being for the second blurb, is perfectly fine. I think we're able to have one of the first two blurbs illustrated most of the time, and while the images are not essential to the situation, they help, and we should be more flexible to the vast majority of situations where there is no BLP violation presented by the second blurb being illustrated. --  tariq abjotu  16:19, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Second choice Khazar2 (talk) 15:15, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Third choice. Not bad, but not preferable to other options.  -- Jayron  32  16:31, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Fine with me. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:34, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Second choice. It's true that most readers usually see the first two items next to the image, so this seems reasonable (particularly given the stipulation that the image would be removed when WP:BLP-related concerns arise).  —David Levy 17:12, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Second choice; also perfectly fine. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:15, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Second choice (moving Option B to third) . - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 17:30, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Third choice.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 17:44, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Second/third choice, depending on what option B actually looks like. Formerip (talk) 17:54, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * First choice: allows for an image to remain if the most recent item doesn't have a suitable one, but prevents an image from overstaying its welcome. It would also make the choice of which blurb gets the image far more clear than it is now. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 18:31, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Fourth choice. This is a nice idea in terms of how ITN would look on the main page, but it would be annoying to administer. --Orlady (talk) 21:14, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Slightly better than D, but I'd still rather have an image for the third or forth stories floating next to them instead of no image, unless it really looks ugly. So far this is the most option I'm leaning for.  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  00:12, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sixth Choice. Still open to misinterpretation.  Eluchil404 (talk) 08:04, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 2nd choice. OK with this, but prefer most recent option. Lady  of  Shalott  00:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Second choice. This is a less optimal version of D; see my comments there. – NULL  ‹talk› ‹edits›  00:42, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Option G: Highlight the blurb while keeping the thumb on top
As per this.
 * First choice. Grabs the attention of the reader, while keeping the thumb at the top. – H T  D  18:23, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, why not. I'm tired of ranking my choices, but this is compelling enough to give consideration.  -- Jayron  32  18:27, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hesitant first or second choice. It looks fine there. There. --  tariq abjotu  18:38, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah...(counts)...Fourth choice, I guess. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 19:13, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * A little too distracting and puts too much emphasis on the pictured item for my taste.  Spencer T♦ C 23:15, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - doesn't look good, and a lot of readers won't realize why it's highlighted. -- Activism  1234  00:27, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * In congruent with WP:ACCESS at best, confusing to everyone at worst. Courcelles 17:38, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Option H: Caption
This is a late addition, but what about using ? Wouldn't that solve the problem? The only drawback is that we'd have to get TFA, DYK, and OTD buy-in, but I don't see how it would be a negative to each section. — howcheng  {chat} 03:02, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * entire support If, as I take it, this means simply captioning the photo, I am all for it way above any other suggestion. μηδείς (talk) 04:41, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Fourth Choice. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:41, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Captions are a good idea no matter where the image occurs. Lady  of  Shalott  00:01, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Second choice. -- Activism  1234  00:26, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. Having the uncaptioned image against unrelated text is absurd. This option is as good as C and D. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:30, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Second choice. Sometimes there is awkward placement, though I am not convinced that happens often enough to merit this change. Jus  da  fax   08:00, 5 September 2012 (UTC)