Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-09-15 Monarchy of Canada


 * Note: Please limit posts to this page to brief statements about the nature of the dispute until a volunteer adopts the case. Keep ongoing discussions about the topic to the appropriate talk page(s), but feel free to provide links to the talk page(s) where discussion has happened (and may be ongoing) for the convenience of the informal mediator and other parties. This will help keep discussion from fragmenting out across more pages and make it easier for a volunteer to review the case. Thanks!

What's going on?
The present situation comes at the end of lengthy discussions about the formatting and placement of images at the articles Monarchy of Canada and Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. Though an outside party eventually discovered guidelines that helped in directing the correct way to place images in an article, one of the parties in this dispute continues to have problems with where images are put, regardless of their placement being as per guidelines. Personal issues are now hindering any communication on the matter.

Previous discussion has taken place at:
 * User talk:PrinceOfCanada/Archives/2008/September
 * User talk:PrinceOfCanada/Archives/2008/September
 * Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom
 * Talk:Monarchy of Canada
 * Talk:Monarchy of Canada
 * Talk:Monarchy of Barbados

What would you like to change about that?
The concerns of both parties should be taken into consideration in bringing about an agreeable resolution, which requires the cooperation of everyone. A mediator may be required to convince one party to continue to participate in discussion.

Mediator notes
Opening case...

As things stand, this clearly isn't going to work out. I said at the start that what was needed was to take the issues one at a time, and resolve them. To that end, I asked that we restrict ourselves to the first issue (image placement) in isolation. Unless both of you can agree to the following ground rules, this process is going to be a monumental waste of time for all three of us; It may be a slow process, as we have to wait for each other to make contributions, but it is, I believe necessary to work this way.
 * 1) I will identify the issues to be addressed in turn.
 * 2) I will invite each of you to submit relevant material towards that issue.
 * 3) You will each submit the requested material, being scrupulously careful to avoid going beyond the scope of what is asked for.
 * 4) I will go through what each of you has submitted, disregarding material that goes beyond what was asked for, sumarise the points of agreement and difference, and offer alternatives.
 * 5) You will each discuss the issue at hand (and not stray into other areas), and we will try to reach a consensus.
 * 6) We then move on to the next issue.

The following cannot be a part of a mediation process
 * Statements predicting some future behaviour from the other party
 * Statements expanding beyond the issue at hand into general mud slinging about past behaviour of the other party
 * Preconditions to continuing with the process
 * Threats to withdraw from the process because of some breach by the other party.

I must ask you both to trust that I'm smart enough to spot if somebody is attempting to pull a fast one here, and that attempting to "win" the argument isn't going to work with me.

If you want to continue, can you both sign below (signature only please, without any other comment) Mayalld (talk) 21:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Prince of Canadat 21:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * --G2bambino (talk) 22:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I am unavailable to take this further until 20:00 UTC on 21st September. Sorry for the delay... Mayalld (talk) 14:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

This appears unlikely to progress further in this forum. Remaining points of disagreement listed back at the article for wider input, and case closed

Administrative notes
Whilst the impression that I get is that both of you are working damned hard to thrash this out within the straightjacket of the "rules" that I put in, we're none of us perfect! As such, if either of you feels that the other broke the "rules", can you leave a message on the case talkpage (rather than on the case page). I propose to deal with any infractions by deleting them. Mayalld (talk) 21:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

As this is an ongoing mediation, can I suggest that you both need to disengage from the disputed articles for the duration. At present, we are part way through putting together a way forward. Using this incomplete agreement in ongoing disputes before you are both 100% signed up to it is not likely to lead to an early resolution.Mayalld (talk) 15:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I also feel that we need to try and draw this bit to a close within the next 24 hours. There are clearly still areas where you aren't in agreement, but there are compromise solutions which will lead to a page appearance that, whilst not exactly what each of you would like, is a damn site closer to it than the version that the other wanted at the start. Mayalld (talk) 15:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion (image placement)
One notices that you carefully avoid noting why personal issues are hindering communication, G2. Perhaps you should expand on that. Perhaps you should, in the interests of honesty, detail your lies about me, your accusation of vandalism, your characterization of my edits as (variously) 'hideous' and 'looking like shit', your hypocrisy (which is really the root of the issue here), your utter avoidance of taking responsibility for the situation, your rude edit summaries, your severe incivility, your editing of my comments (which you know is not okay, because you've been blocked for editing someone else's comments before)... shall I go on?

I have made quite clear the circumstances under which I will attempt resolution with G2bambino:


 * 1) He acknowledges and apologizes for the lies and half-truths he has been saying about me
 * 2) He acknowledges and apologizes for his severe incivility
 * 3) He acknowledges that the edits he is making are in direct contravention to comments and reverts he made to me back in July
 * 4) He actually answers direct questions directly.

If he does those things--that is, without sarcasm, without weasel words, without any avoidance whatsoever--I will be happy to seek a resolution. Prince of Canadat 11:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Clearly there is a good deal of bad feeling here going back a long way, and we need to seek a resolution to that. However, in the first instance, we need to remember that we are trying to build an encylopedia here. Preconditions to entering mediation are not, in my experience, constructive, and simply stall things. Refusing to enter into a discussion with somebody about a disagreement until the other guy admits he was wrong would make for a brief mediation, but it is hardly helping to get all the issues out onto the table to get them sorted, and is going to leave us in a situation where we have further WP:DRAMA down the line.
 * Can we, without preconditions, start off with the fist issue (and, to be honest the important issue), of how images should actually be inserted.
 * In order to allow me to get to grips with the issue as rapidly as possible, could each of you put up a single diff which shows how the difference between what you believe to be the right and wrong versions of image placement. Mayalld (talk) 13:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Diff from G2bambino
Certainly. As everything up to the point where User:Jao presented links to guidelines on image placement has, I think, been resolved, the matter now comes down to how images are placed even in conformity with the guidelines. What User:PrinceOfCanada (PoC) does is within guidelines, though what I also do is within guidelines. The problem arises, as I see it, when PoC's edits cause bunching and unsightly white space, which is discouraged. Regard, PoC's version of Monarchy of Barbados: versus my version: Note that it is his placement of the image on the right-hand side that causes bunching with the infobox, and pushes the text far down the page, whereas mine does not. This is just one example of the same problem being caused at the other pages.

What is most aggravating is that PoC will not say exactly what is wrong with putting the image on the left. He earlier put up this screenshot: However, he refuses to say what's wrong with it, except that it "looks awful." What exactly makes it "look awful" is still a mystery. One wonders if it is the compression of the text between the two images, caused by a small screen size, but this remains to be confirmed, and, if it is indeed the cause of PoC's concern, actually seems to be less discouraged than whitespace is; in fact, it would seem that floating text is perfectly acceptable (though it may cause a disadvantage to those with low screen resolutions or small screens), whereas white space is not. --G2bambino (talk) 16:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Diff from PrinceOfCanada
Putting up a diff is pointless, as the issue is how pages render on different computers. You can see a screenshot that shows how his edits render on some computers. The very basic problem is this: G2bambino seems to believe that doing layout and formatting so that everything looks perfect on his computer is fine. This is despite telling me, quote, "you do realise that it doesn't look the same on every computer, right? It all depends on the size of your screen," and reverting some similarly cosmetic edits I had made with the summary "It's poor formatting."

And yet, for some reason, it's not poor formatting when he does it. One has to wonder why.

Oh, and to forestall the inevitable.. I don't care that he reverted an edit I made in July. I learned from it. The issue is that he appears to feel--as you will see from reading the initial discussion--that as long as it displays fine on his screen, well that's just dandy. Quite deliberately ignoring what he himself said to me. Indeed, multiple requests for him to acknowledge he had said that have been met with silence. Again, one must wonder why.

One should also note that once he was thwarted in one way (due to the intervention of Jao with some pertinent MOS policies), he then went on to deliberately move images around in order to still get what he wanted, in one case showing incredibly poor faith with the edit summary 'better move this down!', when the image had already been correctly placed.

I also hope you have the patience of a saint. His standard tactic--as you can see from the links he provided--is to ignore direct questions, seize on irrelevant pedantries, and generally browbeat until one gives up. You can see the exact same tactics here and here, for two of the more recent examples.

So.. you're welcome to dig around and so on. But until he acknowledges the very basic fact that he is doing what he himself told me doesn't work, and indeed actually responds to direct questions, which is something I have only managed to get him to do once, this whole exercise is pointless. Cheers. Prince of Canadat 14:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

To add a final point of clarity, the only aim I have had in this whole mess is to ensure that pages display as uniformly as possible within the limitations we have when it comes to controlling the code of each article page. This means: ensuring that images always and only display within their relevant sections (per MOS), without impinging on the formatting of following sections. That this creates G2bambino's despised whitespace on some computers at some resolutions and at some screenwidths is regrettable, yes, but unavoidable due to his own statement that "it all depends on the size of your screen." My edits have done nothing but ensure the aim of having pages display as uniformly as possible. His edits are layouts that are idiosyncratic to his computer only. If whitespace is so severe an issue, I recommend that he download Firefox and Greasemonkey, and program the latter to display WP pages in whatever way pleases him most.

I should add that DoubleBlue, who arrived at the Monarchy of Canada page due to G2's placement of the image cleanup tag, is in agreement with my aims. Prince of Canadat 14:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that. There is some stuff in there that we can work on (once G2 has commented). As I said above, I want to do this step by step, and get the formatting issues sorted before we move on to any issues of how you guys interact with each other. Mayalld (talk)

'Unsightly' is good enough for you to use as a justification, G2. But I guess doing as you do isn't allowed. You ever going to acknowledge what you said on the OoC page? Or are you just going to go on pretending it never happened, because it thoroughly undermines your position? Prince of Canadat 16:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem is, Prince, that I never once called what you did at Order of Canada "unsightly," I said it was poor formatting and unneccessary. So, what you say happened indeed never did. --G2bambino (talk) 16:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't be such a pedant. I was referring to two separate things, which was obvious, and you're pretending that because I said two separate things, they were actually one thing, and since you never said both of those things together, everything I say is wrong.  It's pathetic, and that sort of ridiculous hair-splitting is beneath even you. You know full well that you have referred to my formatting as 'unsightly', or are you going to deny that, too?  Or would you prefer 'hideous', 'looks like shit' and 'vandalism' as your bon mots that I'm quoting here? Prince of Canadat 17:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid it's you who's drawing a connection between what went on at Order of Canada and what's going on here, not I. I'm glad, though, that you now acknowledge them as being two separate issues; I was starting to think, for just a bit there, that all this was simply your way of making a point. --G2bambino (talk) 17:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * They are NOT two separate issues, do NOT twist my words! Allow me to rephrase in a manner which does not let you pretend to take a different meaning: 1) On more than one occasion, 'unsightly' has been used by you as a justification for edits, with no further support.  And yet you are saying that's not enough.  2) What you said on the OoC page applies to you, in this situation, because OH GUESS WHAT? Things look different on different computers.  Now kindly STOP twisting my words.  You know FULL WELL I did not mean what you just claimed.  Your dishonesty is breathtaking. Prince of Canadat 21:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I am no longer participating in this process. I was willing to entertain the notion that G2 was acting in good faith.  His comment above, deliberately twisting my words when he knew precisely what I meant, shows that he is absolutely not acting in good faith.  I will not participate in this process until his dishonesty is addressed, period. Prince of Canadat 21:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If I may quote you directly: "I was referring to two separate things." I did not intend to misrepresent what you said; perhaps you see some difference between "things" and "issues" that I'm not aware of? Regardless, given that you are now adamant that there is a connection between what took place at Order of Canada and what took place at Monarchy of Canada, Monarchy of Barbados, and Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, I will repeat myself: there is no similarity. What I said at Talk:Order of Canada was that your edits were futile; as in, there's no reason to try and stop an infobox from crossing a line. You said "it's just ugly," but utterly failed to expand beyond that. Everyone's left wondering: what's the big objection to an infobox crossing a line? In the case of the layout of the other articles, I made it explicitly clear what it was I thought was unsightly, and illustrated it, while you still, as you did at Order of Canada, and after being unable to attack what I did with guidelines, resorted to again saying nothing but "it's ugly"; you gave an illustration, yes, but I see nothing really wrong with it, and can only guess, as I said above, at what it is you object to. As I also said, the lack of input on just why or how it's ugly is the real dam in this process; nobody has a clue what you're talking about, not because things look different on different computers, but apparantly because not many other people agree with you on what is ugly. --G2bambino (talk) 22:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Distilling this issue
OK, I'll keep this brief for now, and put some more detailed MoS stuff up a bit later. The dispute is esentially around how we deal with situations where there are a lot of pictures to fit in. My first thoughts are;
 * 1) Have we actually reviewed whether all these pictures are necessary to support the text, or are any decorative?
 * 2) Have we considered whether we can improve and expand the text to make this less of a problem?
 * 3) Have we considered the use of a gallery where we have a lot of pictures that are necessary?
 * 4) Without prejudging the issue of white space, are you both aware that clear is the right way to achieve it, rather than  tags (it inserts white space only where needed, and isn't dependent on the viewer having the same screen resolution as you.

Could I invite you each to comment on my points above, without commenting on each other (or on the other's response), and keeping your reponse short and to the point (no longer than my passage above!) Mayalld (talk) 07:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Images have already been removed from the EIIR article; the articles in question, I think, strike the right balance between not enough images and too many
 * Doesn't address the issue, namely, idiosyncratic formatting that is guaranteed to work only on one computer
 * No, but on reflection that doesn't address ensuring that images support the text with which they are most closely related
 * I am, yes, and have only used  once--that would be right before G2 reverted my edits, explaining that things look different on different computers. Since then I have not used it to address any formatting issues beyond "the text here should not be running together like this."
 * Prince of Canadat 07:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe we have; PoC is correct that Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom has been purged of excess images (it had already been raised as a separate issue). I also did so at Monarchy of Canada, especially those that seemed to be causing conflict. PoC put them back in, however, and in the same awkward spot. This is the same for Monarchy of Barbados.
 * That may be a solution at Monarchy of Barbados, though it would be a lengthy process occurring over the natural expansion of the article. At Monarchy of Canada, however, no; the article is already over its recommended length. Further, PoC is correct in that it doesn't do anything to resolve the overreaching problem: namely, finding a format that looks good on as many screens as possible, within guidelines, of course.
 * No, and I agree with PoC's reflections.
 * I was not aware of that, but, at the moment, I am trying to rid the articles of unneeded white space, not create more. --G2bambino (talk) 14:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Suggested way forward
Firstly, thank you both for (mostly) sticking to the issues, and not commenting on the other person!

Secondly, I think we should accept a couple of fundamental points here which may make a solution easier; Thirdly, we should move on to General principles of image placement; So, based on those principles, I would put forward the following as a rule of thumb to decide on image placement;
 * 1) Wikipedia uses a markup language, that describes in general how things should be laid out, but leaves the finer details to the browser
 * 2) Attempting to manipulate the markup to achieve a very specific layout may not work on other browsers, and is to be avoided
 * 3) Images are used to increase reader understanding, not for decoration
 * 1) Left aligned images should not be used at the start of a section
 * 2) Left and right aligned images directly opposite each other tend to distract the reader and should be avoided (staggered left/right images that overlap are OK)
 * 3) Image stacking that overlaps into the following section on any brower (not just the browser used by the editor) is to be avoided at all costs
 * 4) The gallery feature is available where there are many images that should be included.
 * 5) White space is unwelcome, and we should avoid it if possible (but not at the expense of allowing an image stack to invade the next section).
 * 1) Any decorative images should be culled
 * 2) Where there is scope to do so, text should be expanded to increase the scope to add images
 * 3) Unless there is a risk that an infobox will encroach in the right column, the first image should be placed at the head of the section, right aligned.
 * 4) The next image (or first image if the infobox encroaches) should be placed at the start of the second paragraph in a section, left aligned
 * 5) Subsequent images should be placed alternately left and right (infobox permitting). If an infobox is really long, we should only add left aligned images every other paragraph
 * 6) Where this is still likely to cause image stacking into the next section, images should be prioritised, and the lower priority images placed in a gallery at the foot of the section
 * 7) Other than cases where the infobox is likely to go right through a section, sections should be closed with clear to ensure that even on odd broswers we don't get image stack.
 * 8) Even following these guidelines, there will be different interpretations about which image goes where. In many cases both will be equally valid, and we shouldn't change between two equally valid options just for the sake of it.

A one line summary of the above is that we avoid white space where we can, but that compared to image stacking into the next section, it is the lesser of two evils.

At this point, could I invite you both to review the above points, and submit a single response each detailing ONLY those points above that you have a problem with, restricting yourself to a single sentence per disputed point (and, naturally, commenting only on the point, rather than the other party, or how they will misuse or misinterpret the point!) Mayalld (talk) 15:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I concur with every single one of your points, Mayalld, save for (sorry!) those relating to image stacking. As I read the picture tutorial, co-aligning images is a way to stack images without causing incident. No? --G2bambino (talk) 16:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed except for:

4) Placement to the left, unless clear is used, can cause the unsightly overlap into the next section and mung the formatting of the next section; also causes text to be squished between left- and right-aligned images if the next section if the next section has an image. 8) No, not always. See my point above. Prince of Canadat 20:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Anyway, that's actually quite positive (remarkably so!). We have 3 issues where we aren't all signed up to the same thing, so lets' address those;
 * Co-aligning is used to stack images where there is a pressing need for the two images to appear together, and as such probably isn't going to be common. Can we agree that where there is a need to co-align images, they should be regarded for all the above principles as a single image (and that we only co-align with talk page consensus).
 * We already envisage using clear in most cases. That leaves us with a possible problem where we are using more left-aligned images due to a long infobox. Can we get round this problem with clearleft?
 * Can you expand a little on why you might wish to move from one valid image set-up to another?
 * Response, with the usual don't comment on the other's reply, and no more words than I used (which seems to be working pretty well)
 * Mayalld (talk) 21:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed.
 * Disagree; clearleft leaves massive white spaces where used.
 * N/A. --G2bambino (talk) 21:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * ) If the co-aligning is either finished with clear if left-aligned, or is right aligned, go for it.
 * ) clearleft works in the same way as clear, really.
 * )I have explained at great length, see my response to your point 4 above. Prince of Canadat 21:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Usual rules! Mayalld (talk) 21:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * One final stab at this before bed!
 * So, we both agree that co-aligning can be used in some cases, that they will not be common, and that we should gain consensus. The general use of clear is already covered by another point, so is this one done and dusted?
 * 1) We seem not to agree on clearleft. It can behave differently to {{tl|clear}, and it can leave whitespace, but are we not agreed on principle that whitespace is a lesser evil than images spanning secions? clearleftonly needs to be considered where we need a right aligned infobox to continue past a section.
 * PoC, my point 8 above is based on an assumption that we have an agreed set of principles. Are you happy that once we have an agreed set of principles that both of you are happy with, we shouldn't be flip-flopping between two different versions that are both valid under the principles.
 * Agreed, as long as it is either right-aligned or covered by clear or both
 * I am absolutely, completely, entirely, fully agreed that whitespace is a much, much lesser evil.. which is sort of how this whole thing started, really. That being said, clearleft needs to be used if there is a chance of images overlapping into the next section, as I have explained above.
 * Ah, understood. Prince of Canadat 21:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed, as long as co-aligning is allowed on either side, per the other stipulations, and without clear. does, however, seem to work for left-co-aligned images, and  works for right-co-aligned images.
 * White space is the greater problem; it is discouraged at WP:PIC whereas an image bridging from one section to another is not. --G2bambino (talk) 22:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps going back to one I missed earlier: left-aligned images should be allowed as the first image in a section (one paragraph in) if the previous section has a right-aligned image that could possibly encroach into the next section, similar in principal to the guideline regarding the possible encroachment of right-aligned infoboxes. --G2bambino (talk) 22:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Remaining Issues
OK, so the main point of contention is whether Whitespace or images spanning sections is bad.

WP:PIC does depracate white space in articles, but it depracates it as the solution of last resort to image stacking.

In other words (by my reading), image stacking is worse than white space.

We do need to remember that clear doesn't automatically cause white space. It only causes it where there would have been a problem with stacking.

I would like to put forward a compromise;
 * 1) Images must not be allowed to span sections
 * 2) All possible steps should be taken to position images so as to avoid the need for white space
 * 3) clear may be used to ensure that images don't span sections. If inserted, it should not be removed.
 * 4) Where an infobox spans through a section, all images should be left aligned in that section, and clearleft should be used instead of clear

Using this compromise, let us look at the Monarchy of Barbados article that G2 gave us screen shots of.


 * User:Mayalld/MEDCAB shows what we can do with a left aligned image, and clearleft. There is clearly more white space than the version that G2 prefers, but less than the version that PoC prefers.
 * User:Mayalld/MEDCAB2 shows what we can do if we add an extra paragraph break (allows us to get the picture higher up the article)

Thoughts (do I have to say "usual rules") Mayalld (talk) 07:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The issue, again, is that depending on screen width and resolution, the image of Charles could easily span into the next section, thereby distorting the following formatting. Hacking the layout via adding para breaks like that does nothing to address the issue. User:Mayalld/MEDCAB3 (I took the liberty, rather than forking to my own sandbox) is the preferred version because 1) the likelihood of the image impinging on the next section is vanishingly low (and clear will take care of that anyway, 2) per your statement above, the first image in a section should be right-aligned. The Barbados infobox above could push the image further down, yes, but clear will ensure that the image won't span into the next section. Prince of Canadat 07:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I am probably breaking my own rules here by commenting before G2 has had input and if you object to me doing this, I'll revert myself, and leave it until G2 has had his say....
 * Both the versions that I put up use clearleft, which will have the effect of forcing the next section to come under the left-aligned image (on my screen, User:Mayalld/MEDCAB actually has some white space). The left-aligned image will never encroach into the next section. See Image:Medcab ss.JPG for what it looks like.
 * points 3 and 4 allow the first image to be left-aligned where an infobox is likely to encroach on the right.
 * Hacking the formatting with artificial paragraph breaks isn't a solution, but inserting extra paragraph breaks in cases where it would be equally legitimate to have a paragraph break or not to have one seems legitimate.
 * Mayalld (talk) 09:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course I have no problem with you commenting. Using clearleft (my bad for not seeing it) will actually cause more whitespace when the image is too large for the text.  I suspect G2 will object to that. As for the paragraph break, it really doesn't matter whether it's legitimate or not; it's not guaranteed to work, is the issue. Prince of Canadat 10:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree with this wholeheartedly; there is no way to guarantee that an image will not span sections (without white-space being deliberately created); as keeps being brought up: different screens show different things.
 * Agree fully.
 * Disagree, as above.
 * Agree with the left alignment, but disagree with the use of clearleft, for it's propensity to create white-space.
 * Neither one of your test-pages is any good - all have unnecessary white-space.
 * My suspicion is - though it still remains unconfirmed - is that the other party's main problem here is with images and/or infoboxes compressing text between them; the screenshot he provided shows that he uses a small monitor, which means that left and right aligned images that may appear nowhere near each other on my screen will appear essentially right across from each other on his. Where the impasse comes is that to rid the problem of text-"squishing" (so to speak) means the creation of the problem of excess white-space. Perhaps, Mayalld, you could confirm my theory, and we'll go from there? --G2bambino (talk) 17:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Um, actually, without getting into an argument, clear and its variants absolutely guarantee that an image or an infobox cannot span sections. I mean, that's exactly what the command does: it requires that all code coming before it (which includes image code) be completely rendered before any code coming after it is rendered.  Think of it like pouring a drink: you can pour your gin and your tonic into the glass at the same time.  If you're not careful, this can mean you end up with too much gin (if there is such a thing!) and not enough tonic.  Using clear is akin to measuring and pouring the gin first, and then adding the tonic separately afterwards. Prince of Canadat 20:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

A final attempt to reach agreement
It is clear that both of you have genuine and strongly felt positions here. It is equally clear that there is no way of editing that will give each of you exactly what you want.

Set against that, we have the fact that you both self-evidently wish to improve Wikipedia (and whilst, from entrenched positions you may not wish to admit it, you both know that the other party is here to improve Wikipedia).

It is clear to me that an ongoing battle between you is doing nothing to improve Wikipedia.

So, it comes down to this...

Progress requires that you both accept a solution that is not 100% of what you want, but is probably 80% of it. A solution that gives both of you 80% of what you want has got to be better for Wikipedia than a solution that gives one party 100% and the other nothing.

As I see it, the issues that have to be reconciled are;
 * G2 sees white space as a problem and wants it eliminated
 * PoC sees image stack spanning sections as a problem and wants it eliminated, and also sees left-aligned images as a problem.

There isn't a magical solution here, but there is a series of steps that we can take that will mean that, for the most part, both of you will be left with a layout that you like better than the layout that the other would have tried for before this mediation.

So, I am now putting the following to you both, modified from the original.

Principles

 * 1) Left aligned images should not be used immediately at the start of a section
 * 2) Left and right aligned images directly opposite each other tend to distract the reader and should be avoided (staggered left/right images that overlap are OK)
 * 3) Image stacking that overlaps into the following section on any brower (not just the browser used by the editor) is to be avoided at all costs
 * 4) The gallery feature is available where there are many images that should be included.
 * 5) White space is unwelcome, and we should avoid it if possible (but not at the expense of allowing an image stack to invade the next section).
 * Agreed, unreservedly. Prince of Canadat 06:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree.
 * Agree.
 * Agree (reservedly)
 * Agree.
 * Agree. --G2bambino (talk) 16:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Guidelines

 * 1) Any decorative images should be culled.
 * 2) Where there is scope to do so, text should be expanded to increase the scope to add images.
 * 3) Where there is scope to do so, additional paragraph breaks can be inserted to both expand the text size without introducing white space, and bring forward the first opportunity for a left-aligned image.
 * 4) Unless there is a risk that an infobox will encroach in the right column, the first image should be placed at the head of the section, right aligned.
 * 5) The next image (or first image if the infobox encroaches) should be placed at the start of the second paragraph in a section, left aligned
 * 6) Subsequent images should be placed alternately left and right (infobox permitting). If an infobox is really long, by which, we mean that the infobox is reasonably likely not to have completed at the point in the text where we would normally add a right-aligned image, we should only add left aligned images every other paragraph
 * 7) Where this is still likely to cause image stacking into the next section, images should be prioritised, and the lower priority images placed in a gallery at the foot of the section
 * 8) Other than cases where the infobox is likely to go right through a section, sections where there is a risk of image stack should be closed with clear to ensure that even on odd broswers we don't get image stack.
 * 9) Where an infobox may go right through a section, and we are using only left-aligned images, we should use clearleft rather than clear
 * 10) Wikipedia is a collaborative project, which relies of editors improving each others work. As such, it is always open to each of you to attempt to improve the work of the other. However, such changes should not have the effect of increasing white space or causing images to span sections.
 * 11) Where the two parties are unable to agree on the layout of a particular section, they should both disengage, and invite other editors to decide.

In this compromise, you are both having to give ground.
 * PoC, you will need to accept that left-aligned images at the start of the second paragraph are OK
 * G2, you will need to accept that having images span sections is not OK
 * PoC, you will need to accept that some hacking of the text to reduce the amount of white space is appropriate
 * G2, you will need to accept that we can only minimise white space, not eliminate it entirely

I am now inviting both of you to accept this compromise, as the only practical way forward, so that we can move on and address the interpersonal issues. Mayalld (talk) 06:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed
 * Agreed
 * I'm iffy on this one, but I'm willing to agree for the sake of compromise.
 * Per MOS, yes. Agreed.
 * It's impossible to tell whether an infobox will encroach, due to browser/screen size/resolution. However, point 9 addresses this, so agreed.
 * Disagreed, unless there is a definition of 'really long'. I am aiming for absolute and incontrovertible guidelines here, and 'really long' is far too open to interpretation. definition added, which I trust satisfies your concerns POC add:It doesn't, I'm sorry.  I know you're trying.  I can't explain why it doesn't without commenting on G2's behaviour.
 * Agreed
 * Agreed
 * Agreed - essentially these two points mean that every single section that contains an image should be closed with clear or clearleft, depending on what is in the previous sections.
 * Agreed, referencing Principles 3 and 5.
 * Agreed, adding further: I would like you to be the arbiter on such cases, as you have been even-handed here and are completely disconnected from any involvement with any articles in my and G2's sphere of interest
 * To clarify, I have never said that left-aligned images are not ok. My issue is when left-aligned images encroach into the next section.  Since points 8 and 9 ensure that will never happen, I'm fine.  Further, the text hacking appears to be deprecated by MOS.  If it's a logical break, no problem I suppose.  It's arbitrary breaking that seems pointless. Prince of Canadat 07:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree (and mostly done already).
 * Agree.
 * Agree tentatively; proper grammar and syntax should not be sacrificed in order to accomodate images.
 * Unclear: does "first image" mean the first in the article, or first in any section?
 * Agree.
 * Agree.
 * Agree.
 * Disagree; this is unnecessary, as using the left-right alternation pattern will ensure no image stacking can take place in areas away from infoboxes.
 * Disagree; this creates absolutely needless white-space; the bottom of a left-aligned image poking into a following section is not discouraged on Wikipedia. Image stacking in areas shared by infoboxes can be avoided by ensuring that subsequent left-aligned images are far away enough so that it is reasonably likely the images will never touch.
 * Agree and disagree; collaboration is essential, but special exceptions cannot be made for every user who has exclusive protestations.
 * Unclear; this goes against the importance placed on collaboration in 10, and how do both disengage completely? Must a MedCab case be opened every time there's disagreement?
 * I have made certain concessions here, but I draw the line at willing permission to depart from Wikipedia guidelines and create unsightly and unneeded white-space merely to placate a single user's unique objections. This sets a precedent that undermines the guidelines, which itself can only lead to confusion in any future disagreements over layout. I don't believe the resolution of this lone dispute should come at the cost of wider negative implications. --G2bambino (talk) 17:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Stalemate?
We have reached an apparent stalemate, which is most unfortunate.

Both of you are seeking to optimise display, but unfortunately, you are seeking to do so on very different displays.

G2, you say that you are unwilling to depart from guidelines here. Could I refer you to Layout, which is explicit that images flowing into the next section on a 1024x768 screen IS a problem. Could you reconsider your objections on that basis.

PoC, based on this same guideline, I must ask you to accept that if, on a 1024x768 screen, the infobox is going to encroach, we go for left aligned images to avoid the image detatching from the text.

Basically, you both need to accept that there is no layout that will look perfect on every resolution.

A layout that looks fine on a low resolution screen will look dreadful, with excessive white space and images detatched from text on a very high res screen.

A layout that has pictures crossing sections to get rid of whitespace on very high resolution monitors will result in a horrible cluttered screen on very low res monitors.

Unless we can move to an agreement here, I'm very much afraid that we will have to chalk this one up as a failed mediation. Mayalld (talk) 21:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no stalemate as far as I'm concerned. And given that I use a 1024x768 layout, that's very, very easy for me, sure.  I agreed to your principles without reservation, and I agreed to points 1-11 of the guidelines, pending some sort of guideline on the size of the infobox. So.. as far as I'm concerned, this is a successful mediation.  G2 asked for the mediation, I agreed, and now I am happy to abide by the outcome as you have presented it.  It's up to G2 now. Prince of Canadat 21:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I would see a stalemate because I've made concessions but haven't seen any in return; PoC gets his zero-images-cross-a-section-division policy while I still see gobs of white-space because of it. Out of all this, the question is still begged: who, other than PoC, has an issue with images crossing section dividers? If it is he alone, why are we to accomodate this quirky peeve? Even what you point to, Mayalld, is not wholly clear; it guides well enough for stacked images in a short section, and I can understand this: one of a number of stacked images in a short section relevant to said section may end up pushed down to a completely different, unrelated section on a smaller screen. I can thus abide by the rule to not stack images in short sections. However, WP:LAYOUT is vague on cases where there is but one image in a section short enough that said image may overlap into the top of the following section. So, again, I'll actually restrict myself to never stacking images, regardless of section length and/or side orientation (along with following all of the above points I agreed to). However, in return, I want use of the clear template dropped as a guideline. --G2bambino (talk) 22:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I would like to clarify one thing: I have made no concessions, as such. That sounds like I'm saying "I have given up nothing!" but that is not what I mean. What I mean is that this isn't about 'concessions' or 'winning' or 'losing'; what we have done is stated our cases to an impartial third party who has offered a solution that is equally imperfect for both of us, and I have agreed to it in the interests of ending this. It's about agreeing to a solution that fits quite evenly between our positions so that we may both move away from this mess with crystal-clear understanding, on both sides, of what we may and may not do.  If you don't wish to abide by the terms of the mediation that you began, that is your choice, but I am satisfied that we're each getting about 80% of what we want; this is fair, equitable, and follows guidelines as retrieved from various sources by Mayalld.  Hopefully you can see your way to agreeing to Mayalld's proposal so that we can both get on with actually improving content around here.  I have one more thing to add at the bottom of the page; I don't know what else to say beyond that. Prince of Canadat 22:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion (personal issues)
We are, I hope, pretty much there with an agreement on a compromise regarding image placement. In the interests of trying to get all the issues sorted as quickly as possible, I'm going to open up the second area, although it is not my intention that we actually start discussing it until we have finalised the first issue.

One of the reasons for delaying this issue (apart from the fact that concentrating on one issue at once allows us to focus better) is that I've been having a really good think about how we deal with this is the most constructive way possible.

I have to say that we have already come a huge way down the road, from the situation when we started. We started off this mediation with a lot of deep rooted suspicion, resentment, and wariness about the other parties motives all around, and we were talking more about each other's faults that the problem at hand. With efforts on both sides to stick to some ground rules, we have ended up with a much more civilised discussion.

Please don't imagine that I'm a saint. If you look around for the way I contribute to discussion (on and off wiki, I'm not hard to find), you will note that I'm not averse to arguments, and forceful arguments. I do, however, claim that I would happily buy a beer for any of my adversaries, because we can disagree with mutual respect.

I could simply say "WP:AGF & WP:CIVIL" and leave it at that. Indeed, those two documents ought to contain sufficient guidelines that following them meticulously would put an end to the conflict, but I think it would be good all round to elaborate a little.

I should say at this point that what I am proposing here is slightly radical, and may take you both somewhat aback....

I don't intend to ask either of you to recite the "crimes" of the other, and I don't intend to go through the wrongs (real or perceived) one by one. That, in my view, is not the spirit in which we build a new accomodation.

I note from your user pages that you are both Canadian Monarchists. Well, that means that we all share a Queen (I'm British), and at the very grave risk of bringing religion into this, I'm suggesting that we approach our "sins" in the same way as the church that she heads does. We don't need to talk about them in detail, as long as we recognise in ourselves what they are!

What we need here is a clean sheet. We draw a line under any prior acrimony (without any considerations of "he was far worse than I was"), and resolve that we go forward respecting the opinions of the other, even when we don't agree.

I would like to propose acceptance of the following points by both of you;
 * There have been instances on both sides of failures to WP:AGF and a lack of WP:CIVIL, and apologise for the cases where you were wrong (but without enumerating them)
 * Such failures are not good for Wikipedia
 * They aren't actually much good for the people on either end of the failure
 * Both of you want to improve Wikipedia, and accept that the other does as well.
 * You both agree to draw a line under any past animosity, and both want to work towards a common goal
 * You both agree to do the best that you possibly can to abide by WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL, even in situations where you may feel provoked.
 * You both accept that the other is human, and fallible. At some point the other guy is going to step over the line, but you're going to let it slide, because next time it could be you stepping over the line.
 * You both accept that in respect of the other, you need to be punctilious in observing WP:NPA and undertake to remove any content from your user space that might be considered as a direct or indirect personal attack on the other.
 * You both agree that where there is a danger of a flare-up of old problems, either can call for a time-out, and that both of you will disengage form editing the article in question for 72 hours, whilst you discuss the issues calmly.


 * Both of you are invited to respond in no more than 40 words, and without talking about the other party!

I'm going to comment now, as I don't have anything else to say on the matter. I accept everything you have written above, and agree to your suggestions on how to handle future disagreements.

G2bambino, please accept this in the honest spirit in which it is intended: I am sorry for anything I have said to you that has caused you distress or offence. Let's move on, shall we? Prince of Canadat 22:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed, and I offer my apologies in return. --G2bambino (talk) 02:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)