Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2015 March 4

= March 4 =

Identify parking (?) tags
In the fifth episode of Better Call Saul, we see a woman (Mike Ehrmantraut's daughter, I think) driving a Subaru car. Affixed to the inside lower left of the Subaru's windshield are these two stickers (sorry, that's the most detail I can get). I'm hoping y'all might be able to help me identify what they are. The show is set in Albuquerque, New Mexico, but they don't appear to be NM vehicle tax stickers (which seem to be stuck to the licence plate instead). The logo on the stickers isn't a Subaru logo, so they probably not manufacturer or dealer stickers. Better Call Saul is set in 2002, so it looks like they're six-monthly parking stickers, presumably to allow the character to park at her place of employment. She is shown wearing scrubs, suggesting she works at a hospital or some kind of care facility. The logo (to the extent that it's discernible in the image) doesn't resemble the current logo of any of the larger hospitals I can find in Albuquerque, but my search can't have been exhaustive. Does anyone recognise what these stickers are for? Given the show's attention to detail, they're not there by accident - but of course I recognise that they might only be props pertaining to some fictional hospital too. Thanks for your help. 46.208.59.195 (talk) 11:22, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Here in Texas, we have two stickers *exactly* like that on the window - one being the tax sticker and the other the state inspection sticker. Just because the show is set in New Mexico doesn't mean that there are no out-of-state cars there.  Those stickers don't look like the Texas ones - and it's odd that they both seem to have the same graphic on them - but it's possible they come from out of state someplace.  SteveBaker (talk) 15:54, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the OP is right about them being intended to be consecutive stickers for something. The 02 is I presume the year. The number under IM is I presume the month of expiry. They probably don't both have to be on the car, but I guess people may do that often if they get them both and don't want to bother to have to remember to put the second one up. I had a look at all the examples at Department of Transportation, but can't find any examples with a similar logo. Of course, the logos could have been different in 2002. Nil Einne (talk) 16:46, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * @steve - The car's plates aren't shown clearly enough to be sure, but they look like the usual sunny-yellow NM plates that other vehicles in the show have. 46.208.59.195 (talk) 17:56, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Just FYI, Jimmy/Saul's car is a Suzuki Esteem, not a Subaru - Cucumber Mike (talk) 15:23, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


 * It's not Jimmy's car, it's the woman's car. 87.112.25.246 (talk) 17:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC) OP, with apparently new IP lease


 * Oh dang, sorry. Reading fail! - Cucumber Mike (talk) 17:51, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

The visual display of the articles
Hello,

The first thing you learn in Graphic design school is how to set out text in order for it to be easy to read.

This is why newspapers have columns. It is so much easier and more pleasant to read large amounts of text when it is presented in small widths. The eye travels down easier than across.

It is such a shame that all the Wikipedia pages are set out in long and extremely wide paragraphs. I always have to reduce the size of the window to create a skinny text in order to read up on things.

Creating regular paragraph breaks also makes it so much easier to read text. I have had a look at your editing options but there does not appear to be any page formatting tool available.

I would love to do some pages for you so that you can see for yourself how much better it reads.

Many thanks, Alexandra — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dingbatdelux (talk • contribs) 13:09, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Graphic design schools have an unfortunate tendency of teaching a bunch of pseudoscientific cobblers (like their perennial favourite, the golden ratio) and passing it off as "fact". But if we use actual scientific studies of the effect of line length on readability, we see little to no effect, certainly no evidence that narrow columns are better and a weak suggestion that they're worse. 46.208.59.195 (talk) 13:31, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Appreciate the interest in improving Wikipedia, but you're on the wrong page. This reference desk is for questions of fact in miscellaneous topic areas, usually unrelated to Wikipedia. For any real chance at change, your best bet is Village pump (proposals), and be warned such a major change has little chance even there. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  13:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * As with any modern website, just change the Skin until it displays how you want it to. If one that you like isn't available that displays things exactly how you wish, create one. See also Skin. Nanonic (talk) 13:58, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't think CSS supports laying out a &lt;div&gt; in two columns, so you'd need some JavaScript split the text for you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LongHairedFop (talk • contribs) 14:40, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Having two columns in an online document makes zero sense (see my comment below) - but having a narrower swath of text with images off to the sides is (arguably) a nicer presentation - and that could easily be done in a MediaWiki 'skin'. SteveBaker (talk) 15:46, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * CSS 3 does support multi-column layout (modulo some technicalities) - see here and here. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 20:50, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem with multiple columns is that they only work in a situation where there is an actual page - you need to be able to flick your eyes from the bottom of one column to the top of the other, without having to scroll up and down with the mouse.  Problem is that the concept of a "Page" doesn't really exist on a computer screen...the height of the screen is variable depending on the window size.  If you find a PDF that's organized into two columns, but the page is larger than the screen height, it's a MAJOR pain to have to scroll up and down between columns - and very easy to lose your place by accidentally scrolling up more than one page height.   But think about it...why do we need to pack our columns so close together?  We're not paying for the cost of paper - so one long, continuous column - without page breaks is much easier to handle because you only have to scroll gradually in one direction.
 * So even if you were right about short line lengths being easier to read (which, as 46.208.59.195 points out, you aren't) - then a single narrower column would make vastly more sense than having two wedged in side-by-side.
 * Which in turn leads me to say: Adjust the width of the browser window to the line length you find easiest to read...which is what you're already doing.
 * There are plenty of websites which have bought into this idea that narrow columns are easier to read - you see that (for example) in http://medium.com, which leaves large white borders either side of the text, and has much wider photographs and graphics.  This also allows for readers to respond to the text by putting short annotations in the margins.
 * SteveBaker (talk) 15:46, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Line length does affect readability, and the IP and Steve should do more research before dismissing the claim entirely. But line length technically has nothing to do with the number of columns.
 * We shouldn't talk about "short" or "long" lines if we want to study the effects, we should quantify line length, either in terms of character count or an actual length unit, like millimeters. Obviously, lines 1000 characters long will be very hard to read, as will lines that are 3 characters long. Most studies find peak readability in the 50-80 character range, though different methods and metrics and sample sizes will cause a decent amount of variation between studies. Also consider that there are many different metrics for readability, and that an optimal line length for reading speed will not necessarily be the optimal line length for reading comprehension. A selection of scientific articles addressing the issue here  , , , many of which use at least slightly different methods and ask technically different but related questions. More can easily be found searching google scholar.
 * But as Steve points out, 2-column would likely be bad for WP, and you can resize your browser to give a line width that you are comfortable with. 18:23, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Also the paragraph breaks are more about writing style than text presentation per se. Feel free to be WP:BOLD and split up long paragraphs wherever you like. You need no special formatting, just but two lines of white space between paragraphs. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:24, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Er, that is, two consecutive newlines, giving one line of white space. --70.49.169.244 (talk) 19:54, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks, that's what I meant to say :) SemanticMantis (talk) 20:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the first thing they should teach in design school is how to resize your browser window, and perhaps the second thing they should teach is that it is generally preferable to provide flexible options that allow readers to display text according to their personal preference. Fortunately, modern technology allows this.
 * It's also worth noting that not everything in Wikipedia is prose. We also quote poetry in our articles, and wide pages are almost a prerequisite for poetry - it's extremely difficult to understand the structure of the Aeneid and The Song of Hiawatha if you have to read them in narrow columns!
 * The user has confused her personal preference, or that of her teachers, for a universal law. For the record, I keep my browser windows as wide as possible, and would find newspaper-style columns a nuisance to read. RomanSpa (talk) 11:30, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is entirely personal preference of the OP, I vastly prefer a wide layout to multiple columns. (Which, as an aside, would make editing here more complicated too). 131.251.254.81 (talk) 11:46, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, Alexandra's question seems to be based on a false assumption. The page layout taught in graphic design is for the purpose of making a whole page look attractive, and to encourage the reader to read it.  Sometimes this is to the detriment of readability, even on a printed page (though that's probably because the designer failed to consider readability when making the page look pretty).  I strongly dislike narrow columns because they make the text difficult for me to read (possibly because I read whole words at once and hate hyphenation), and I find pdfs set out in columns really difficult to follow when I can't see a whole page at once.  Columnar layout is totally unsuitable for Wikipedia, but we could reduce line length by including more pictures at the side.  I agree with Alexandra about long paragraphs.    D b f i r s   12:49, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree that layout in talk sections is very important. But I don't worry about line length, since the reader controls that, and except for poems, artificial line lengths are distracting. (You'll also notice as the OP that your line lengths were ignored by the WP layout parameters.)


 * Nevertheless, I do break up paragraphs as often as possible, and use one sentence paragraphs or bulleted lists when it makes sense. This makes reading much easier.  Many of our editors understand this.  Others, like Nil Einne and SteveBaker do not, but I won't mention their names out of courtesy.  WP:TLDR


 * Having worked s a typesetter, copy editor, and editor, I know that short paragraphs and page columns are important for ease of lection. But I don't see a way for WP to have multiple columns of text within articles on a regular basis. It simply screws with the layout of charts and images.


 * Aesthetics are secondary to universal access at WP. And it's up to the reader to figure out how to vary the browser width and font size.  TANSTAAFL.


 * μηδείς (talk) 02:51, 8 March 2015 (UTC)