Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images/Archive 8

Making changes without discussion, and the need to keep this guideline stable
BushelCandle and EEng have made a number of changes to this guideline that a number of editors have disagreed with, especially Johnbod, Moxy, Masem, and myself. While I understand the point about not discussing every minor change to the page, they are not simply making minor changes to the page. When you are making significant changes to longstanding sections of a guideline, those changes should generally have discussion first. It does not matter how right you think you are, or how much better you think you are at writing the rules. The top of guideline pages states "Please ensure that any edits to this page reflect consensus." for a valid reason. All these changes and back and forth disputes also make for an unstable guideline. And like I noted in the above, "It is not a good thing for a guideline to have different wording from day to day, or even from week to week." BushelCandle agreed with that, and yet still kept making changes that had no consensus. This needs to stop. This is not an article, and should not be treated like one, with editors going in and making any change they want, resulting in back and forth edits, edit warring and unnecessary arguments. There is nothing wrong with proposing changes first, and seeing what editors think. This is a guideline, for goodness' sake; that is what should be done. It should not be a page edited on the whim of one or more editors. This lack of consensus for the changes is what has some editors wanting to restore parts of this guideline back to the WP:STATUSQUO. I am not asking for a return to the WP:STATUSQUO for everything on the page. But when there is no consensus for one or more changes made to a guideline or policy page, the status quo should remain; SlimVirgin has tried to make that clear in the case of this guideline, to no avail. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:18, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * My main concerns is the page is changing daily many times...this is simply not how we improve our protocol pages. We have conversations all over trying to quote things here but they never stay the same...thus other discussions are being impended by all the changes here. We dont want people to point to our "how to pages" over the guideline because the guide is not stable nor matching the another page on the topic. Guidance isn't created from scratch or by a  few editors in a few days....all that was here took over a decade to come to the proper wording and then that was reflected in the "how to page".  Its a bit of a mess here now.... have ongoing talks on about multiple  sections and the rest being re-wording daily and expansion tags all over. We need to update How to contribute to Wikipedia guidance to make it clear that editing and trying to solve ever problem at one time is not good approach...nor should it spill over on to other policy and guideline pages..... perhaps a sandbox and the statuquo would help us see all the changes.  Its hard to move forward when so much is begin asked and changed all the time. -- Moxy (talk) 19:03, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It will probably help a bit to notify the main WT:MOS talk page of major disputes here (or just raise them there to begin with); it's better watchlisted, by people with a broad and long-term view (including with regard to stability). I don't know if the #6 merged draft I did above will be accepted, but it's an illustration of the kind of approach the MoS regulars would bring, a merge-consolidate-and-clarify method. One problem with the MoS subpages is they tend to get a lot of instruction creep and may even diverge through WP:LOCALCONSENSUS and WP:FALSECONSENSUS from MoS itself (which supersedes them) until normalized again.  A good rule of thumb is that if you're changing something here that would affect the summary version at WP:MOS itself, raise it on the WT:MOS talk page, or it probably won't fly in the long run. (There have even been attempts in the past to change a bunch of MoS subpages and related naming conventions guidelines in an attempt to "force" a change at MoS itself. Spectacular and massively disruptive failures.)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:07, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I know that getting help from WT:MOS is important; that's why I alerted them to the above dispute. I completely agree with your statement. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:24, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I know know that. :-)   — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:21, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I think it's important for editors to remember that WP:PGBOLDly editing a guideline is acceptable per the long-standing policy on how to edit policies and guidelines. Not everyone will be comfortable doing that, but it is a valid and "legal" approach even when this results in temporary instability. "Reflecting consensus" means "My changes better describe what the community at large is doing in this area". It does not mean "I got written permission from a handful of editors on the talk page before changing this".

If someone (e.g., at FAC) is encountering practical problems with this, then they can squawk and we can help them. However, let's not assume without evidence that instability in this particular guideline is likely to cause any such problems. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:34, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Attempting to change something non-trivial in a WP:POLICY page boldly is permissible per WP:EDITING policy. It rarely sticks when not discussed, so there is little point in such an approach, most of the time. It can be used to kick-start discussions, per the D in WP:BRD, when people have been avoiding the discussion, but there's rarely much utility in "change long-standing policy to say something radically different" actions.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  18:50, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Most of these changes are not "radically different", and quite a few of them barely reach beyond "cosmetic". In my personal experience – and I freely admit that I am an outlier here – nearly all of my undiscussed changes to guidelines and policies "stick" long term.  Your personal experience may be the opposite.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:26, 29 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I also dont have these problems.....but i also adhere to WP:PGBOLD ". Bold editors of policy and guideline pages are strongly encouraged to follow WP:1RR or WP:0RR standards. " ....this has not happened here....thus why all the problems.  --Moxy (talk) 01:59, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

RfC notice: Use of flag icons on genocide-related articles
Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:30, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

"See Figure 1"
The MOS says to "Avoid referring to images as being to the left/right, or above/below, because image placement varies with platform, and is meaningless to people using screen readers; instead, use captions to identify images." - should this also explicitly extend to avoiding "(Figure 1)" type asides in text? I see these occasionally, and they always seem redundant, being just as clear (and more accessible) if the image is located next to the paragraph, and if its caption is rewritten to clearly state what it's illustrating. --McGeddon (talk) 16:50, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * To me it seems inherent in the existing text. FunkMonk (talk) 17:05, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Sometimes the figure can't be located exactly where you'd like it, sometimes one figure needs to be referred to at several scattered points in the article, and sometimes two or more similar figures need to be discussed via comparison or contrast. The most vociferous objection to "Fig. 1" etc. was that saying "See Fig. 1" is a "command to the reader" which is forbidden by some snobbish sense of style. That's ridiculous, of course, since we have hatnotes, See also sections, and all kinds of things that "command the reader", but that's as far as that discussion got.
 * The other problem, of course, is that there's no way to automatically number figures, and refer to those assigned numbers in the text, so that the Fig. #s don't have to be manually adjusted any time images are added, removed, or juggled.  E Eng  21:04, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Sandwiching
I've been religiously trying to prevent sandwiching wherever I edited. One thing this doesn't mention is the complexities involved and moreover, I don't see even many FAs following this which led to me to believe that this isn't an important part of the MOS. Collapsible infoboxes, templates and TOCs can significantly alter the overall layout of an article and can easily "break" an otherwise text sandwich-free article. When they say it should be avoided, they mean only in the "default" view of the article right? Another way it can break, is even with a slight change to content (ie expansion, trimming) can upset the balance of the article. So far I've found that this is the hardest MOS advice to listen to. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 21:54, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The most important thing is the width of the screen, relative to the print size. To a large extent this is a self-solving issue: if the screen is wide, a bit of sandwich doesn't matter, if it is narrow the extra height the text uses will remove or greatly mitigate the sandwich. The MOS was mostly written in the days of relatively consistent screen size/shape/orintation, & doesn't really cope with today's situation.  All you can say now is that you have a sandwich on one of your devices. Johnbod (talk) 17:09, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm so glad to see someone else explain that technique, which I've been afraid to voice for fear robots would just chant over and over, "NO SANDWICHING -- MOS SAYS SO! BEEP!" I used the technique at Phineas_Gage to, IMO, perfect effect.  E  Eng  19:07, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Absurd wording of an unnecessary addition
Lately BushelCandle made an addition to a sentence that was already kind of inaccurate. The original sentence: "If multiple related images are being placed on the right, then the multiple image template may be useful." Why placed on the right? The template allow any alignment. Yes, the most common placement is on the right; but why continue to bombard the reader with this limitation of mind? The addition: "....may be useful but be aware that this template does not allow logged in user's selected image sizes to be respected." Who cares about logged in users. Common readers of Wikipedia are not logged in; even a big chunk of editors are not logged in. So there is no need here to introduce the reader to the longstanding question/dispute "upright or pixel". If an editor needs to use multiple image, he will, regardless of "upright or pixel". Anyway, if really it's deemed important here to refer to this vexed question, go to the point, e.g: "....may be useful but be aware that this template allow to set images width only in pixel and not using   (for a discussion on image sizing please go to WP:IMGSIZE)." Carlotm (talk) 07:03, 4 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Many astute editors realise that the most important reason for using relative image sizing (rather than hard coding a fixed pixel width) is not so much to respect the small minority of logged-in users' thumb size preferences that have been changed, but rather to be better prepared for the probable case that there is a change in the default size from 220px. If we jump to 280px, then all those hard coded 240px and 260px, never mind 200px, are going to look pretty forlorn...
 * You're absolutely right about the right hand alignment, though.
 * Unfortunately if you look at the archived history of this guideline page and associated discussion page, you'll see that there has sometimes been hand-to-hand trench warfare about the positions of commas and selecting word order and adverbs, so I was loathe to scrub placed on the right. If it was up to me, I wouldn't draw attention to this crippled template anywhere and hope it then dies an obscure death. BushelCandle (talk) 08:33, 5 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Your point about future changes to default size is a very good one.  E Eng  12:31, 5 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Given your response, BushelCandle, I expect a change in your addition's wording.
 * In a wider perspective, if we really care about relative image sizing (RIS), as we all should, we will first scrap the current  method which binds the image size to the so called default size, which nobody should pay attention to since it doesn't have any relation to the most important dimension at hand, which is the page width. We should instead (1) change, or at least raise awareness about, all those graphic elements, and their inside images, where width is set directly in pixels (infoboxes, tables, templates), and (2) create a new, real RIS method ("size"?) that sets the size of any graphic element as a percentage of the page width (or of its host width). But we are not there yet. In the meantime, the increased monitors' resolutions and dimensions, and the capabilities of browsers to let the user zoom in and out and even change the default dimension of font alone without changing any other element, are superseding all our current quarrels about image sizing. Carlotm (talk) 20:38, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * There's a lot of merit in what you write about page width, but I am essentially a copyeditor and lack the time and fortitude for the longer struggle of enhancing our overall reader experience. BushelCandle (talk) 20:54, 5 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm strongly again most uses of this template, which there has been a trend to greatly overuse by a few editors, perhaps including BushelCandle, who go round converting articles to it. It is usually only appropriate for very closely related images which really need to be seen together (and aren't very detailed) - before and after, stage 1 + stage 2 etc. I'd support removing all reference to it in the context of mere "over-crowding" of images. For most overcrowded articles mini-galleries of 1 or 2 rows are a much better solution. Johnbod (talk) 17:15, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I thought that the reason this template was mentioned (in its right-aligned, vertical arrangement, which is what this guideline cares about) was to keep images from getting shoved all the way down the page if you have a long infobox. I'm not sure that's working at the moment.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:17, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

How should MoS-defiant image editing be handled?
After I removed the gallery of examples of ethnic Madhesis (with an edit summary of "Sadly, WP:NOETHNICGALLERIES applies: see this article's discussion page"), my removal was immediately reverted.

Obviously I do not wish to get into an edit war by reverting the reversion, so what are good ways to handle MoS-defiant image editing, please? BushelCandle (talk) 21:23, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Though I don't have any sympathy with your reverter on this particular point, the MOS images pages have for so long been well adrift of what the community actually does, and discussions and changes here dominated by a handful of opinionated policy talk specialists, that nobody pays much attention to what the pages say any more. It can't convincingly be claimed that the MOS represents "community consensus" on a number of points. See any number of FAC discussions, for dogs that don't bark. Johnbod (talk) 03:06, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * So open an RfC on it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  03:56, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not going to give you that treat. I'll just go on ignoring it, like everyone else who actually edits articles. Johnbod (talk) 13:48, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Read: "No, I know I have an outlying opinion that consensus will not actually back."  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:54, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * No, read: "There would be an interminable discussion which only a handful of people would join, and they would soon give up reading the platform speeches of the policy talk specialists, who would then carry on, having found something to argue about among themselves, for 20 screens or so. No conclusion is likely to be reached. Meanwhile "consensus" is found in what editors actually do, and what is accepted at FAC." The two Rfcs leading to WP:NOETHNICGALLERIES are rare recent exceptions to this rule, partly because the point at issue was relatively simple and pretty much answerable by "yes" or "no" without sprouting alternative options, unlike most issues here. Johnbod (talk) 13:03, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * We're all familiar with your anti-MoS battlecry, Johnbod, and you should probably have noticed by now that this campaigning to right the great wrongs stuff is not working and is not going to work. It is in fact interesting to read FAC discussions. What one observes is a couple of anti-MoS pundits frequently whining about the guidelines, and using WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS arguments to beg for exemptions, and generally being ignored on such matters. Let's dump some cold water of fact on the fire of your rhetoric: The second of four Featured article criteria is "It follows the style guidelines ...". So, let's move on.   — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:57, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Meanwhile "consensus" is found in what editors actually do... Seems unworkable. "What editors actually do" has not been subjected to critical debate, an essential element of consensus. It is effectively voting sans argument, which we are supposed to avoid. Further, "what editors actually do" is quite often a matter of opinion, perception, and differing experience. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  08:05, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * My advice is to remember that this is a guideline, not a policy, and therefore leeway exists with its rules. WP:Policies and guidelines explains the matter, and so does WP:BURO. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:35, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Please, do nothing. Carlotm (talk) 18:47, 31 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I thought that existing galleries that were not the subject of dispute were to be left alone? (or that might have just been wishful thinking on my part) Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:13, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Separate issue:

BushelCandle, your edit summary hints that you disagree with NOETHNICGALLERIES, at least in some circumstances. If that's true – if you think that removing this particular "ethnic gallery" makes that particular article worse – then why did you do it? No editor should ever make any change that s/he believes to make a page worse. Making the change should be left to someone who personally believes that the page is improved that way.

This isn't just a philosophical thing. WP:BRD depends upon people always acting to (in their personal opinion) improve articles. The whole point of BRD is that I make an edit, you revert it, and then I need to discuss the change with you personally – and to have a discussion that's more productive than "Well, I didn't actually mind, but I reverted your bold edit because I think that maybe some other editors might object". WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:12, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, misuse of BRD to pre-emptively prevent changes, on the basis that someone might eventually formulate a cogent actual objection to the changes, has been escalating a lot over the last couple of years, and has a lot to do with why the proposal to elevate BRD to guideline status went nowhere. It's too often abused as a WP:Status-quo stonewall hammer.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:05, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Referring to images in text
I think we need a section on "Referring to images in text." The particular evil I want addressed is content like "(see image at right)" which generally fails on mobile viewers. Suggested wording: "Avoid referring to images by position, e.g. '(see image at right),' as displayed image position may differ on mobile Wikipedia viewers." Perhaps there are other issues that might be covered.--agr (talk) 13:31, 26 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I have seen that practice discouraged in the guidelines, but I can't point to it at the moment. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  13:41, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I tried to find something on the topic too, also without success. That suggests to me a named section on this page would be appropriate, so people looking for guidance on image use would be likely to see it.--agr (talk) 15:31, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Sometimes this is necessary, or very useful, but over-specific locators should be avoided, if only because the pictures quite often get re-arranged by people who haven't read through the text. Better to make clear which picture is meant, by saying clearly what it is of. Johnbod (talk) 16:53, 26 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Text already says,
 * Avoid referring to images as being to the left/right, or above/below, because image placement varies with platform and screen size, and is meaningless to people using screen readers; instead, use captions to identify images.
 *  E Eng  17:24, 26 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for finding it, but it is in a section called "Vertical placement", not where most editors would look. I think a separate section heading such as "Referring to images in article text" containing this sentence (and possibly expanding on the advice), would be better.  I think it should be right after the placement discussions, before and at the same level as "Size".--agr (talk) 15:49, 27 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I think you're right. Take a look, though I really can't decide whether it should be a ===-level or ====-level section.  E Eng  18:56, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I think ===-level is best. Article referencing a separate issue from where images should be placed. Finding existing references to left/right/ above/below might be a good bot application.--agr (talk) 15:33, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Concur this was a good idea, as it was kind of hard to find; I remember having to look around a lot for it a few months ago.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:06, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

WP:PERTINENCE section
We need to work out the first paragraph of the WP:PERTINENCE section since unstable guidelines are never good. It is not a good thing for a guideline to have different wording from day to day, or even from week to week. EEng and BushelCandle took issue with the original wording of the guideline. Their changes started on February 15. I took issue with their changes and all three of us have been changing or nitpicking at the section since, mainly that first paragraph. This is the version of the section I prefer, per reasons explained in the edit history. This version is also closest to how the section originally was, but with significantly less words. And, BushelCandle, I've been clear that I prefer the "Images should be significantly and directly relevant to the article's topic" bit before the "and inform rather than decorate" bit; the reason why is because the section is about pertinence and encyclopedic nature, and I think it's better to note the "significantly and directly relevant to the article's topic" part before the "and inform rather than decorate" part. And yet you keep reversing that order. EEng originally changed that order, and supports it as well. But, yeah, I don't. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:21, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I think WhatamIdoing wrote a lot of that section (I know she wrote some of it), so maybe she has something to state about the recent changes made to it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:27, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Here's a suggestion:
 * It adds a bit to your proposal, Flyer22, but I think this would flow a little better. Just my 2¢. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:50, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It adds a bit to your proposal, Flyer22, but I think this would flow a little better. Just my 2¢. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:50, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * GoneIn60, thanks for the proposal; I prefer your version. And the "may not be appropriate or necessary" part makes it clear why images may be excluded from an article. I think the "contested" bit is limiting, though, since an editor might remove an image that's not contested. So I'd prefer we drop "contested." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:56, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, I'll certainly endorse the suggestion of dropping contested. So now we have:

The profitless recitation of the blatantly obvious, as if editors are morons, is the primary reason MOS is so grotesquely bloated. Everyone not blind from birth knows, from personal experience, that images "have the ability to aid in a reader's understanding of the subject"—‌in fact even the blind know it, because they've been told. Then comes the halfhearted statement that images "are often considered an important part of an article". Really? They're not even often important, but often considered important? We can't just say straight out that they are often important, or even are important, but have to treat it as a POV opinion that maybe only some people agree with? The whole first sentence adds zero in terms of how to select or use images.

And then we have, "Editors are encouraged to locate better images and improve captions as opposed to simply removing an image from the article." OK, yeah, so let's say an image is being removed ("from the article"—‌where else would they be removed from? My God, the verbal diarrhea!) because it's one of the low-quality images that this very guideline says, further down, not to use ("​​dark or blurry; showing the subject too small, hidden in clutter, or ambiguous"), or maybe it's decorative but not informative. Fine. Does it really help to "encourage" editors to find a replacement image? Do we really think there's someone who doesn't realize that on his own, but will somehow remember, "Oh, yeah, MOS/IMAGES encourages me to find a better image rather than just removing this blurry one", and then go do that? It doesn't even say that an editor ought or must do this, but is just an exhortation aimed at those who, if they weren't going to do it on their own, aren't going to do it because MOS "encourages" them to. It's like that stupid sign on the bus that says, "Please give up your seat for an elderly or handicapped person who needs one"—‌as if someone who isn't, on his own, inclined to give a crippled old lady his seat is gonna do it because a sign says to.

This should simply read:
 * Images should have significance and direct relevance to the article's topic, and should inform rather than decorate. For some topics, images may be unnecessary, or appropriate images unavailable.

I'm not even sure about the second sentence, because MOS is supposed to be about how to select and use images if they're going to be in there, not the FA requirements. Probably it should just read:
 * Images should have significance and direct relevance to the article's topic, and should inform rather than decorate.

All the useful guidance, in 1/4 the words. And one more thing... 's right about the order of points, which is much stronger as:
 * Images should inform rather than decorate, and have significance and direct relevance to the article's topic.

This puts the peripheral before the central, and has better rhythm too. BTW, what's the difference between "significance" and "direct relevance" and just plain "relevance"?  E Eng  03:11, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I would hope that we can all agree that "It is not a good thing for a guideline to have different wording from day to day, or even from week to week". I'm also glad to hear you, Flyer22 Reborn, hint that less fluffy words can be better.


 * I've taken your point that this particular subsection 1.1 has, for a long time, had the heading of Pertinence and encyclopedic nature. Consequently I've moved the "inform rather than decorate" phrase out of it entirely and into the, formerly completely empty, main 1. section of Choosing images so that we don't have to fight over phrase order any more. I've also shortened by an eensy-weensy bit and and removed a rather imprecise, glossed internal link to . I would hope that you can be taken at your word and discuss any future changes/reversions that you might have in advance. BushelCandle (talk) 20:26, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I take issue with the 'they should inform rather than decorate'. Images should not in general say anything more than the text unless they are backed up by secondary sources. The pertinence section should just concentrate on pertinence. Dmcq (talk) 21:17, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * BushelCandle, and I reverted it; I disagree with the separation; it does not help matters, and the wording can be easily overlooked by those who will opt to click on the "Choosing images" heading instead of the "Pertinence and encyclopedic nature" heading from the table of contents. I also reverted again. As for you agreeing with me that "It is not a good thing for a guideline to have different wording from day to day, or even from week to week.," then why do you so often change this guideline?


 * EEng, whether we include the original "aid in a reader's understanding of the subject" part or GoneIn60's alteration of it, it should be there because it explains why images are "often considered an important part of an article." It also helps to drive home the point that images should inform rather than simply decorate. If everyone understood that images are usually meant to aid in a reader's understanding of the subject, so many editors, especially the newbies, wouldn't add images simply for decoration, resulting in an article bloated with images and WP:SANDWICHING issues. There would be no Non-free content or Non-free content criteria, which states in its "Contextual significance" section, "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Stating things plainly is not necessarily treating editors like morons, especially as far as the inexperienced editors go; the guidelines are mainly meant for those inexperienced editors. Significantly experienced editors already know the rules (though not all of them since there are so many). I agree with simply stating "often important" instead of "often considered important," and I don't think GoneIn60 meant anything by adding "considered"; it is a minor semantics issue. As for the "Editors are encouraged to locate better images and improve captions as opposed to simply removing an image from the article." line, we can obviously change that to the following: "Because of this, it is commonly preferable to locate better images and improve captions than remove an image from the article." or use the previous wording of "so finding good images (and giving them good captions) is often preferable to simple removal." This is another minor semantics issue. As for including any mention of a replacement image aspect, the reason I think we should retain that aspect is because there have been many cases where an editor simply removes an image and doesn't think to replace it, especially in the case of newbie editors or otherwise less experienced editors, with enough of them not even being aware of WP:Commons; I have seen that happen countless times, including drive-by removals. And it's clear various others have as well, which is why that aspect was added to the guideline and retained for years. So I don't agree with your significantly reduced proposal above. As for putting "Should inform rather than decorate" before "Images should have significance and direct relevance to the article's topic," you were the first one to change the order; BushelCandle was simply following your lead, as he often does. I disagree with that order, per what I stated above.


 * Dmcq, I disagree. Images should usually inform; they should not be solely decorative; that type of thing has caused many issues at articles, including the WP:Non free type. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:32, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * What problems have been caused by images that are solely decorative and yet are pertinent to an article? And how does one tell whether something is decorative or not if they cannot say anything more than is said by the text? Have you got some specific example in mind? Dmcq (talk) 22:02, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I still don't like this passage - was there ever a discussion about this and, if so, where may it be found? BushelCandle (talk) 22:08, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Dmcq, what problems? I stated above, "If everyone understood that images are usually meant to aid in a reader's understanding of the subject, so many editors, especially the newbies, wouldn't add images simply for decoration, resulting in an article bloated with images and WP:SANDWICHING issues. There would be no Non-free content or Non-free content criteria, which states in its 'Contextual significance' section, 'Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.'" In addition to WP:Non-free issues, having a bunch of useless images in articles creates text issues (such as people placing an image in the middle of a paragraph, creating WP:SANDWICHING problems, and placing many images in a stub article); there's also the WP:Gallery issue, where many editors create galleries just for the heck of it. But notice that WP:Gallery states, "[...] The use of a gallery section may be appropriate in some Wikipedia articles if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images. The images in the gallery collectively must have encyclopedic value and add to the reader's understanding of the subject. [...] Wikipedia is not an image repository. A gallery is not a tool to shoehorn images into an article, and a gallery consisting of an indiscriminate collection of images of the article subject should generally either be improved in accordance with the above paragraph or moved to Wikimedia Commons."


 * BushelCandle, what don't you like about the passage? Furthermore, as you know, that section does not look like that anymore. It looks like this at the moment. I can compromise by agreeing to put "Should inform rather than decorate" before "Images should have significance and direct relevance to the article's topic," but I think that the section should be the way it is now, except that we should add GoneIn60's wording of "In some situations, however, images may not be appropriate or necessary." in place of "In some cases, however, images may not be needed." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:30, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I am asking that we work out wording and agree to it here on the talk page first before changing that paragraph of the section again. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:35, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I also don't mind (much) changing "should inform" to "should usually inform" or "should generally inform." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:01, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I really don't see why it is in at all. The reason you gave was something to do with a worry that someone might stick in a non-free image - that can be deal with especially in the section about fair use of non-free images rather than about pertinence. Mixing things is very often a bad idea and especially if it is unnecessary. As it says in WP:POLICY "Be as concise as possible—but no more concise." and "Maintain scope and avoid redundancy". And you still haven't specified what 'inform' means in this context, it looks like it is too easy to abuse to start removing images which are helpful but do not give any information which isn't in the text - which means a very large proportion of the images. Dmcq (talk) 00:39, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Dmcq, I agree to disagree then because it is important to me that we note that images "should [usually] inform rather than decorate"; I've already stated why above, and the reason was not simply about the non-free issue aspect. And as for editors removing images that are helpful, the "Images should be significantly and directly relevant to the article's topic, and [usually] inform rather than decorate." wording should stop that. So should the "so finding good images (and giving them good captions) is often preferable to simple removal." wording, or something similar. If the image is helpful in some way, that is because it is usually informative. The only benefit of a decorative image is if it's the lead image, since those images automatically make articles more welcoming, usually at least. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:29, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I understand the use of decorative images in some cases, such as different free images in a celebrity's article, which may show the celebrity with a different hair style, at a noticeably different age, or in some other different fashion. So I struck through "only" in my "05:29, 22 February 2016 (UTC)" post above. But even those images usually inform in one way or another, especially in the case of age or style, and also via their captions. And keep in mind that this is a guideline, not a policy, and we don't have to give the impression that decorative images are never allowed; that's why I suggested we add "usually" or something similar. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:53, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Discussion or no, the guideline has read the way it does for years and, unless you really feel this is life-or-death, that equals a de facto consensus. We should work from what's there now.
 * How would you feel about dropping the "inform" bit and just saying, "Images should not be primarily decorative"?
 * "aid in a reader's understanding of the subject"... should be there because it explains why images are "often considered an important part of an article" That's no argument, since "images... are often considered an important part of the article" has no value either, as already explained in my prior post.
 * "aid in a reader's understanding of the subject"... also helps to drive home the point that images should inform rather than simply decorate No, telling editors that images can inform in no way tells them that they shouldn't, in other instances, be used decoratively.
 * If everyone understood that images are usually meant to aid in a reader's understanding of the subject... there would be no... Non-free content criteria, which states [etc etc]" No, NFCC gives special requirements for a special class of images, and has nothing to do with appropriate use of images in general.
 * Stating things plainly is not necessarily treating editors like morons, especially as far as the inexperienced editors go Stating plainly things that need stating is fine, but belaboring (plainly or not) things obvious to absolutely everyone (inexperienced or not) squanders our limited claim on editors' attention.
 * As for including any mention of a replacement image aspect, the reason I think we should retain that aspect is because there have been many cases where an editor simply removes an image and doesn't think to replace it, especially in the case of newbie editors or otherwise less experienced editors, with enough of them not even being aware of WP:Commons; I have seen that happen countless times, including drive-by removals. You said that before and you may even be right. But I've explained why I think exhortations here to find replacements won't help, and you haven't answered that.
 * As for including any mention of a replacement image aspect, the reason I think we should retain that aspect is because there have been many cases where an editor simply removes an image and doesn't think to replace it, especially in the case of newbie editors or otherwise less experienced editors, with enough of them not even being aware of WP:Commons; I have seen that happen countless times, including drive-by removals. You said that before and you may even be right. But I've explained why I think exhortations here to find replacements won't help, and you haven't answered that.


 * What would you say to getting other editors' opinions about a choice between the following two? But please, no RfC yet -- let's see what the usual suspects can work out here first.
 * (A) Images should have significance and direct relevance to the topic, and not be primarily decorative. Images can benefit an article greatly, so finding good ones (and giving them good captions) is preferable to simply removing poor or inappropriate ones. Images can benefit articles greatly, so finding good replacements is encouraged when removing poor and inappropriate ones. In some articles, however, images may not be needed.


 * (B) Images should have significance and direct relevance to the topic, and not be primarily decorative. They can benefit articles greatly, but some articles may not need them.
 *  E Eng  04:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * You stated that my argument that the "aid in a reader's understanding of the subject" aspect should be there because it explains why images are "often considered an important part of an article" is no argument; I disagree. And since I'd rather not repeat why I disagree, I won't repeat.


 * You objected to my "also helps to drive home the point that images should inform rather than simply decorate" point. I disagree.


 * You stated, "No, NFCC gives special requirements for a special class of images, and has nothing to do with appropriate use of images in general." I made the argument that editors commonly do not understand that images should usually inform rather than decorate. I noted that this aspect indeed ties into NFCC. And it does since many "fails NFCC" discussions have concerned editors using images to decorate rather than enhance a reader's understanding of the subject. Just ask Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, who commonly deals with "fails NFCC" issues. So I can't agree that NFCC has nothing to do with the "inform rather than decorate" aspect.


 * We disagree on the "obvious" argument; why is above, so I won't repeat.


 * As for retaining the "removing images" aspect, we clearly disagree on that as well. You stated that you "think exhortations here to find replacements won't help, and [I] haven't answered that." I'm not sure what you mean, but I've clearly noted why I think we should retain that aspect, and you see where I'm coming from on that. I think including it helps and won't hurt anything.


 * As for your latest proposals, it's clear that I'd prefer (A). But I still dislike any type of "Images can benefit an article greatly" wording without noting why this is the case. The "it's obvious why images can benefit an article" aspect is one we disagree on, per above. Furthermore, many of our policies and guideline state the obvious anyway (which you've indicated above by stating "MOS is so grotesquely bloated"), and I don't see that as a bad thing. Clarity is usually better than ambiguity. And I'd rather the "simply removing poor or inappropriate ones" wording be "simply removing images"...since an editor might not remove an image because it's poor or inappropriate; they might remove it because they don't like it; in some of these cases, editors don't take the time to look for a replacement image that they might like. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:29, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * None of your arguments makes any sense, for the reasons bulleted in my prior post, and you repeating "I disagree" over and over, without explaining why you disagree, doesn't change that. You could save even more time (yours in writing, and everyone else's in reading) by just not responding at all, since that's effectively what you're doing anyway, just in 3000 bytes instead of zero.  E Eng  06:18, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * If you thought none of my arguments made any sense, you would not have clearly understood my point regarding the "removing images" aspect. Either way, just because my arguments do not make sense to you does not mean they make no sense. When it comes to MOS issues, hardly anyone's arguments make sense to you because you always think that you are right; really, others on this very talk page have stated essentially the same to you. And I've seen it enough at the WP:Manual of Style talk page. I stated "I disagree" in cases where it was clear that I shouldn't be repeating myself, and to save this section from becoming WP:Too long; didn't read read as discussions usually become exactly that when you are involved. Your assertion that that NFCC has nothing to do with the "inform rather than decorate" aspect makes no sense to me; neither do some of your other arguments, but the difference between us is that I usually don't need to brush an editor's arguments off as "nonsense" to feel victorious in a debate. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:38, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Making the prescriptive parts of a policy or guideline longer normally makes them less clear. Explanations and examples are what can make something clearer. That is why the policy on policies and guidelines says to make them as concise as possible but not more concise. Extra verbiage just leads to disputes. Also I really would like to see a couple of examples of problems which have sparked this dispute. You may feel that saying images should not be primarily decorative is something good to say - but have you an example of where people have put in images that would be eliminated by this and not something else and where discussion was needed to remove the images. Policies and guidelines should be based on actual practice and need. Dmcq (talk) 14:34, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * To put things in a historical light, here's the most recent content discussion about that section: 17 July 2010. This lead to a major expansion, which held up for most of a year until the section was restructured in this edit. Aside from minor cosmetic changes, that's the text this project page has held onto for over 4 years. Thought I would provide this as a way to put the text's evolution in perspective.
 * Also in regards to my proposal above, it was just a slight modification of the current wording. If you're in the camp that believes the current paragraph is already bloated with excess verbiage, then obviously you weren't going to agree with (or like) that particular proposal. Having heard the arguments above, I think there's a reasonable desire from both camps to shorten and clarify the section with less verbiage. There's no need to tear into other fellow editors in the process; doing so may only prolong efforts at reaching a compromise. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:11, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * You talk about a major expansion but the old version of the guideline and a version from not so long ago that I looked at say nothing about inform or decorate anywhere in them, this is what it had in the first paragraph of the pertinence section what you pointed at
 * "Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly and directly related to the article's topic. Because the Wikipedia project is in a position to offer multimedia learning to its audience, images are an important part of any article's presentation. Effort should therefore be made to improve quality and choice of images or captions, rather than deleting them—especially on pages which lack visuals."
 * There was talk there about not just being decorative - but it didn't as far as I can see make it into the actual guideline. And why does no-one point to an actual example? Dmcq (talk) 18:45, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Dmcq, for the record, I was only providing evidence of major changes to that paragraph over the past 5 years. I was ignoring the recent flurry of edits made over the past month. You are right that decorative was not in the original wording. If you want an explanation of why it was inserted, then the person you should be asking is BushelCandle (diff). Personally, I don't see an issue with using that term the way that EEng suggests in the (A) and (B) examples above stating "primarily decorative". That leaves some room open for interpretation, meaning some amount of decoration is tolerated. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:40, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * BushelCandle added the decorative part after I made it clearthat using images solely for decoration can be a problem. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:38, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


 * You did not make it clear that decorative images were bad for the encyclopaedia. You said that newbies sometimes put in images which fell foul of non-free images needing to have a good justification. That is a different problem entirely and should be covered as such. The etc is not explanatory. I still would really really really like to see an example of the problem which isn't covered already by something else like the non-free images. What is the %$£! problem with somebody producing an example? Dmcq (talk) 14:28, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


 * And that is where we disagree, because I believe that I was very clear above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:42, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I am unable to read your mind without you providing some indication of what your thoughts are. I am unable to work out for myself what the problem might if there are no examples of a problem. Your word that you think there is a problem is not enough, I must dismiss your changes as unjustified. Dmcq (talk) 00:40, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Opinions solicited
Could the usual suspects who hang out here opine on (A) versus (B) in bold above?  E Eng  06:18, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * How about just "Images should have significance and direct relevance to the topic," Dmcq (talk) 14:36, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I do think the not-just-decorative point is valuable.  E Eng  19:47, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * If it is valuable then can you point me to an example where it would make a difference? And if it would make a difference does it reflect current practice in that the decorative image was removed? Changing the guideline if it is not current practice and no evidence can bbe shown of where it would make a difference is problematic as in general they are supposed to reflect best practice - at least that's what it says at WP:POLICY. Changes to practice by dictat requires a bit more justification. Dmcq (talk) 22:53, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment – The second sentence in (A) lacks coherency. So we should find good images and give them good captions but allow the poor and inappropriate ones to remain? A better way of phrasing that:
 * I would go further and suggest we replace "They can benefit articles greatly" with "They can provide encyclopedic value". The latter directly ties into the section's title and defines what kind of benefit we're talking about. I disagree with the proposal in (B) to remove the second sentence; it should remain in some form. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:38, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I've integrated your suggested change into (A), with a slight wording change. I have to say I'm not keen on the change to "can provide encyclopedic value" -- too wishy-washy. I mean, good images really can make a big difference. Can you state your !vote for (B) more prominently?  E Eng  19:45, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with leaving (A) the way it is now. While I think "can benefit articles greatly" sounds a bit overdone with possibly some ambiguity surrounding the term benefit, I can live with it.
 * For clarity:
 * Support (A)
 * Oppose (B)
 * For reasons stated above. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:44, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, how about "improve articles greatly"?  E Eng  22:25, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps an improvement, but it still sounds a bit peacockish. Honestly, I'm fine with the proposal at this point. There's not enough wrong with that part to justify a change. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:41, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps an improvement, but it still sounds a bit peacockish. Honestly, I'm fine with the proposal at this point. There's not enough wrong with that part to justify a change. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:41, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * When it comes to the usual suspects weighing in on this, there is clearly only us thus far: GoneIn60, Dmcq, BushelCandle, EEng and myself. Others watching this talk page have yet to show interest weighing in on this. So either we work this out, or we start that RfC EEng dreads. I commented above on the proposals. I was clear that I am not satisfied with either, but prefer (A) over (B). I reiterate that I do not like the "Images can benefit an article greatly" wording since it is ambiguous and doesn't tell us a thing about why images can greatly benefit an article. I disagree with EEng that we shouldn't retain the "Because of their ability to aid a reader's understanding of the subject, they are commonly an important part of an article" wording or similar because he views the matter as obvious/common sense. If we are going to state "Images can benefit an article greatly," then we should be making it explicitly clear why that is. I reiterate that I'd rather the "simply removing poor or inappropriate ones" wording be changed to "simply removing images"...since an editor might not remove an image because it's poor or inappropriate; they might remove it because they don't like it; in some of these cases, editors don't take the time to look for a replacement image that they might like. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:38, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

(A) is clearly better than (B); while EEng doesn't need to be told some of these things, there are certainly trigger-happy editors that need to be reminded that WP:PRESERVE is a policy, and that the undo button is not the best response to an imperfect caption or the choice of a less-than-Featured-quality image.

But mostly I think this dispute is a case of straining at gnats. WP:Nobody reads the directions, so the details of which phrase to put first, or whether to use this word or that word – they really don't matter. With the exception of EEng's recent proposal to omit information that he doesn't need (but which my experience shows some other editors unfortunately do), you're fighting over changes that will have no practical effect on what editors do. As a path forward, if "just quit wasting your time" isn't going to work for you, then you might talk about concrete examples of how editors might apply the text, and what you would like them to do differently, and how you could change the text so that, two years from now, a tiny percentage of them will do what the directions say. If you conclude that you don't want them to do something different, then leave it alone. When The Wrong Version isn't wrong enough to have a practical effect on what editors do, your time will be better spent on other work. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:59, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * (A); agree with WhatamIdoing. The recent extravaganza of gnat-straining has clearly driven everyone else away until the current editors find somwhere else to play. This section (here) is a fine example of why. Johnbod (talk) 14:05, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * This section? Try this entire page! Well said. It does seem like a lot of unnecessary attention to perfect an already solid guideline. Looking back, it doesn't appear there was ever any evidence presented to show why a change was needed. Was the current phrasing causing confusion? If so, is it clearly having a major impact? Seems more theoretical at this point. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:42, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Prefer (B), but OK with (A). I'm happy as long as we're leaving out the ridiculous bit explaining why images are good things.  E Eng  15:17, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

For the record, I also agree with WhatamIdoing. And I think Johnbod knows that I'd rather not be having all these debates with BushelCandle and EEng, but they are the ones constantly changing the guideline. My latest edits to the guideline were mainly because I object to their changes, especially their changes to the WP:PERTINENCE section, and I was attempting to keep that section closer to the original wording...for reasons I've already noted. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:42, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * For the record, we've been editing the guideline to bring it into line with superseding policy and reduce bloat—‌the latter being a big part of the reason, as Whatamidoing observer, nobody reads guidelines. As already noted, your reasons are completely illogical, such as citing something in NFCC as if it has something to do with images in general.  E Eng  21:31, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Again, if my reasons were completely illogical, you would not have clearly understood my point regarding the "removing images" aspect. If my reasons were completely illogical, WhatamIdoing would not have stated, "(A) is clearly better than (B); while EEng doesn't need to be told some of these things, there are certainly trigger-happy editors that need to be reminded that WP:PRESERVE is a policy, and that the undo button is not the best response to an imperfect caption or the choice of a less-than-Featured-quality image. and "EEng's recent proposal to omit information that he doesn't need (but which my experience shows some other editors unfortunately do)." Unlike WhatamIdoing, I see that you clearly need to be told these things. And WP:NFCC has much to do with editors using images purely for decoration instead of for educational value/to enhance a reader's understanding of the topic, as many such discussions have shown. I also pointed to WP:NFCI. You have not simply been making minor changes to this guideline, and even the minor changes are ones you can't seem to let go. Like WhatamIdoing essentially stated: If it ain't broke, don't fix it. And I've stated similarly to you before. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:51, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


 * "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" is the lazy person's way of saying, "Since it's not a total mess, why bother?" Again, your reasons are completely illogical even if I'm able to ascertain what you're trying to do with your tortured, fractured thinking. Can you quit with the bold? It's really annoying. E Eng  22:06, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Repeating "your reasons are completely illogical" does not make it so; you are wrong, and others see it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:09, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Let's say that's true. That still leaves "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" being the excuse of the lazy, and all that bolding. E  Eng  22:20, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Then we disagree on that phrase as well because I use it to mean "if a system or method works well there is no reason to change it." At Wikipedia, if changing a rule truly helps (such as editing a guideline to bring it into line with superseding policy), I am likely to be for it; if changing a rule is more so about what the editor prefers, then no. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:03, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Honestly, this is too easy. Don't you ever give up? That's how it's supposed to be used, but in the hands of the lazy it's a chant of complacency. What about the bolding? BTW, there's something I've been meaning to ask you: do you ever write any content, or do you just revert stuff? E  Eng  23:24, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


 * "Don't you ever give up?" is essentially what others have asked you when it comes to your repeated changes to guidelines and policies against objections, and when it comes to your juvenile, disparaging remarks. This guideline was doing just fine without you, and can continue to do just fine without you. As for "do [I] ever write any content?", that you even have to ask me that shows that you aren't very familiar with me as an editor. My work speaks for itself, and a simple perusal of the top of my user page or talk page can easily point to what work I've done at this site. The fact that I WP:Patrol more so these days doesn't negate the work I've done. But if you must know what articles I'm mainly focusing on these days, it's the Vagina and Human brain articles (the former will have reached GA status later this year, and the latter is taking longer). How about you? I've certainly been wondering if all you do is tamper with policies and guidelines, given your contribution history. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:22, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I can certainly understand your considering adding 2/3 of Vagina worth mentioning among your achievements. As for myself, see User:EEng for a short sample. E  Eng   04:49, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Your "04:49, 25 February 2016 (UTC)" reply is as empty as the rest of your replies. But it, and especially you trying to prove your worth to me by pointing to your DYKs, further shows what I mean about your juvenile behavior. Here's a tip, though: Instead of DYKs, try GAs and FAs. I have significant experience with all three, and DYKs are not likely to impress me. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:53, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Jeesh, your really are too easy. As usual you miss the point. I don't expect anyone to be impressed or pleased with the fact of DYKs, nor would I expect you have an appreciation of anything there. I supplied the link for the benefit of others with more refined tastes. Good work on Vagina, though! E  Eng  14:58, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Replying to juvenile remarks with the respect they deserve is not being "too easy." We all know you love to WP:Bait and disparage. And now you've met an editor who can dish it out right back at you...without being as crass as you are. If that is being too easy to bait, then I accept. Someone should let an editor who thinks that working on such an important biological and medical article as Vagina is having less refined tastes because of their "Oooh, genitals. *Snickers* I'm so immature." mindset know that he is an editor who is being ridiculous. Someone should let an editor who thinks that any of the DYKs he pointed to are considered as important as, or more important than, an article such as Vagina or Human brain is an editor who is being ridiculous. I am a WP:Med, WP:Anatomy and WP:SEX editor. We work on such important articles, including the ones that juvenile editors snicker over. There are various articles I can point to that show off my work, including my GAs and FAs. There are a number of medical editors I can ping to vouch for me. But I see no need to brag or try to prove my worth to you or anyone else on this talk page. You started this "Do you even do anything of worth besides reverting (that is, if reverting vandalism and other problematic edits is even of worth)?" side discussion. If you can't handle it, or think you should get the last word on it, then this is why you should think twice before disparaging any and everyone who disagrees with you. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:14, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Lest anyone be misled, I never said anything like, "Do you even do anything of worth beside reverting (that is, if reverting vandalism and other problematic edits is even of worth)?" You still miss the point, which has nothing to do with articles' "importance", nor the doubtful achievements of DYK, GA, or FA. As for, "And now you've met an editor who can dish it out right back at you", see Dunning-Kruger effect. Please do be my guest and have the last word now. (I'm putting this interlude in &lt;small> to help spare others diaphragm cramps from laughing.) E  Eng  22:14, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


 * It's clear to anyone with a brain what you meant by "BTW, there's something I've been meaning to ask you: do you ever write any content, or do you just revert stuff?" and "I supplied the link for the benefit of others with more refined tastes. Good work on Vagina, though!" That you think I or others cannot decipher what you meant, and that you have the gall to imply that I or others "just don't get it" by correctly assessing what you meant, shows how out of touch you are with your snark and your need to disparage. It also speaks to your ego; you know, the way your "brilliance" just outshines any intelligence the rest of us dare have. As for placing this sideshow in "small," hatting it would be much better. No need for your foolishness to be on full display. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:17, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Can you live with B? If so, then there's really no need to bother with this side conversation. You can just make the change, and then move on to another project. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:52, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Great suggestion. Done.  E Eng  12:30, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * And I reverted; I see no consensus for it, and I was clear that I was not satisfied with the proposal. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:22, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm happy with (A) too, so I've installed that.  E Eng  04:49, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but you won't be getting the last word on this. It is not EEng's way (his proposals) or the highway. If you want that dreaded RfC, I can surely make it happen. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:53, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


 * And let's be very clear here: No one was especially pleased with your proposals. They (me included) stated that option A is better than Option B. You gave us two options, and acted like we are only supposed to choose from those two options, since, from your viewpoint, GoneIn60's proposal is some horrible monstrosity and the current wording is for idiots. And even with overwhelming support for option A over option B, you inserted option B. Yes, I know that WhatamIdoing stated, "You can just make the change, and then move on to another project." But she wants this debate to end. So do I. So does everyone who has participated in this discussion so far. There is even support for restoring the section to the WP:STATUSQUO. Clearly, the WP:STATUSQUO would be worse for you, given how much you hated that previous version. I tried compromising with you on that section, which is why I put up with the back and forth editing of it. That was not enough for you. Things seemingly have to be your way. And since that's the case, this debate continues. That I am tired of all this nitpicking and fighting doesn't mean that I'm just going to agree with what you want and leave it at that. If you can't leave this alone and walk away, this mess of a dispute continues. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:22, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Ooooh, "I can make it happen" -- ooooh! You're so powerful and capable! You can make RfCs happen! Yes, by all means let's have another of your RfCs, this time on whether editors need to be told that "Because of their ability to aid a reader's understanding of the subject, they are commonly an important part of an article."  E Eng  14:58, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Whether we go with this, this, or the WP:STATUSQUO, we won't be going with your unnecessary changes. Accept it and move on. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:14, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


 * As far as I can see the long term WP:STATUSQUO till the fast back and forth editing and the load of talk above was:
 * "Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly and directly related to the article's topic. Because the Wikipedia project is in a position to offer multimedia learning to its audience, images are an important part of any article's presentation. Effort should therefore be made to improve quality and choice of images or captions in articles rather than favoring their removal, especially on pages which have few visuals."
 * Yes I'd be happy with that and I can't see the point of the changes - in fact they seem to be verging on we want no yous steenkin images. Saying that non-free images should always have a strong justification does not mean that all images need to have a strong justification. Dmcq (talk) 16:26, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree with Dmcq. It might be best to revert to that version until we can get a clear consensus on the exact wording. Unfortunately, having to agree on every verb, noun, article, etc. is what this has come to. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:39, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Dmcq, you could restore the section to the WP:STATUSQUO, and I'd accept that. But it'd simply be reverted by BushelCandle (who thinks it's acceptable to sit out discussion and edit war his preference into the guideline, especially since he knows EEng will come to the tag-team rescue), or by EEng. While the RfC below takes place, it would be best if SlimVirgin or some other administrator restored the section to the status quo and full-protected the page for a few weeks. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:21, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Which version to go with?
This WP:RfC concerns how much detail to include in the first paragraph of the WP:PERTINENCE section of the WP:Manual of Style/Images guideline. Some editors feel that more is better for clarity and precision, especially for newbie or otherwise less inexperienced editors; other editors feel that more is not necessary, especially if it has the effect of underestimating our editors' intelligence. There is also sentiment that retaining the WP:STATUSQUO version is best. For those reading this RfC from the RfC page or their user talk page (via an alert), see the Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images subsections for more detail. The below proposals are from those sections, with the last two being subsequent edits made to the guideline page. Feel free to support more than one proposal. I will alert Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style and WP:Village pump (policy) to this discussion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:21, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Alerted here and here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:41, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Another RfC-for-everything RfC, with five (5!) versions for editors to compare word for word. In fact, one of them ("Third proposal") stupidly regurgitates strikeouts and insertions of no consequence anymore! How clear and useful this all is!  E Eng  21:43, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Yep, another one, as promised. And as for usefulness, it's already been established that what you consider useful conflicts with what others consider useful. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:17, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

First proposal: STATUSQUO
Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly and directly related to the article's topic. Because the Wikipedia project is in a position to offer multimedia learning to its audience, images are an important part of any article's presentation. Effort should therefore be made to improve quality and choice of images or captions in articles rather than favoring their removal, especially on pages that have few visuals.

In this case, the "primarily meant to inform readers" bit was in the second paragraph of the guideline. Click on this link for the status quo.


 * Support. I support the "more is better" options, for reasons I've noted above. I do not believe that explaining things clearly, giving solid reasons for a matter, is necessarily treating our editors like idiots. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:41, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. I don't like the explicit injunction against 'decorative' in the other ones. And I don't know what 'informative' is supposed to mean if a free image is not supposed to say anything more than the text. Dmcq (talk) 23:58, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Support mostly Drafted a merged replacement, option 6. This needs more concision (the below ones attempt this, but they all lose important points, not just excess verbiage). This also needs the "rather than decorate" material from proposal 2; this point actually  important.  I do not believe anything in here is treating our readers or editors like idiots.  This is a normal, explanatory intro, and being this clear about it will forestall a lot of pointless dispute and WP:GAMING. It can just be done a little more succinctly. (BTW, we had to take a similar approach at MOS:ICONS, and the more "this is why" is got, the fewer recurrent disputes we had (and the faster the ones with legitimate points were resolved.)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:25, 2 March 2016 (UTC) One obvious specific concision fix: "Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly and directly related to the article's topic" → Images must be significant and illustrative in the context of the article's topic (then add, rather than decorative.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:36, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Second proposal
Images should have significance and direct relevance to the article's topic, and should inform rather than decorate. They have the ability to aid in a reader's understanding of the subject, and are therefore considered an important part of an article. Instead of simply removing, editors are encouraged to locate better images and improve captions when possible. In some situations, images may not be appropriate or necessary.


 * Support. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:41, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Support-ish Drafted a merged replacement, option 6. I like the specificity of the first one, but this one's "rather than decorate" clause is crucial. I prefer someone else's version below to use "illustrate" rather than "inform"; the latter is not really the right word.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:23, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Third proposal
Images should have significance and direct relevance to the topic, and not be primarily decorative. Images can benefit articles greatly, so finding good replacements is encouraged when removing poor and inappropriate ones. In some articles, however, images may not be needed.
 * Oppose. The "significance and direct relevance" in most of these is redundant. "Images can benefit articles greatly" is an unexplained, meaningless platitude.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:56, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Fourth proposal
Images should have significance and direct relevance to the topic, and not be primarily decorative. Because of their ability to aid a reader's understanding of the subject, they are commonly an important part of an article; so finding good replacements is encouraged when removing poor or inappropriate ones. In some articles, however, images may not be necessary.


 * Support. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:41, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose: "primarily decorative" is gameable. The more concise second proposal got at that point better. [Changed my mind on that.] The "Because of their ability to aid a reader's understanding of the subject, they are commonly an important part of an article" so-called explanation is less clear than the one in prop #1. This verges on tautology.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:21, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Fifth proposal
Images should have significance and direct relevance to the topic, and not be primarily decorative. Finding good replacements is encouraged when removing poor or inappropriate images, but in some articles images may not be necessary.
 * Neutral See merged #6 instead. . I like the concision of this, but it lost too much from proposal #1. If this "don't blather" approach were applied to prop 1, the "primarily" decorative gameability were dropped,  [it might actually be workable] and the rather redundant "significance and relevance" [nothing that isn't relevant to a context can have significance in it] were changed refer to illustration, we'd have something to work with.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:29, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * , I lose the thread at "were changed refer to illustration". But could you do us all a favor and make a Sixth, by dropping/modifying "primarily decorative" in this Fifth, and adding back whatever you feel shouldn't have been lost? I'm happy with just about anything as long as we omit the tautologies.  E Eng  01:20, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'll take a stab at it. Done; see #6.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:56, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Sixth proposal (synthesizing all of the above)
Images must be significant and illustrative in the context of an article's topic, rather than primarily decorative. They are often an important part of an article, aiding readers' understanding. Find better images and improve captions when possible, rather than simply remove poor or inappropriate ones, especially on pages that have few visuals. However, not every article needs images, and an excessive number will be distracting in any article.

Revised (per EEng's comments, below):

Revised further per 's and 's comments, below; others may follow):

I made this version by taking all the others, breaking them into stacks of different takes on each part, and merging the parts one at a time, with an eye to textual concision while retaining all salient ideas, and reducing some of the passive voice. I included the link in the original, but don't feel strongly about it (the point was to do a merge that lost nothing, but wasn't pedantic).

I put back the "primarily" before decorative. It's probably not as gameable as I think (I'm just paranoid from years of MOS:ICONS debates).

I also added the obviously missing point that shoving 20 images on most pages isn't helpful.

— SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:56, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks, . I have a few questions/suggestions. I leave it to your judgment to use them as you will:


 * Re Images must be significant and illustrative in the context of an article's topic, rather than primarily decorative. They are often an important part of an article, aiding readers' understanding.
 * What more does significant and illustrative in the context of an article's topic give us than does just significant and illustrative? In what other context would Wikipedia images be significant and illustrative, or indeed be anything at all?
 * Re They are often an important part of an article, aiding readers' understanding.: (a) Shouldn't that be "of some articles"? (b) Do people really need to be told that images aid understanding?
 * How about just Images must aid the reader's understanding, instead of being primarily decorative. (I was going to say "understanding of the topic", but again, what other understanding could it be?) Or a bit softer: The purpose of an image is to aid the reader's understanding, not to decorate.


 * especially on pages that have few visuals. May I suggest dropping this? I mean, it's one thing to have an exhortation which may or may not be remembered at the moment of truth, but is it really useful to have gradations of exhortation in two different situations, distinguished by a vague word like "few"?


 * However, not every article needs images, and an excessive number will be distracting in any article. --> However, not every article needs images, and too many can be distracting.


 *  E Eng  06:05, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I trimmed it some (new draft up top), but any more compression than this and it's going to start being meaningless in places (I actually had to undo three compression attempts before saving this because upon successive readings they had parseability and ambiguity problems).


 * Some variant of "in the context of an article's topic" ("related to the article's topic", etc.) is in most of these, so it seems to be felt important (and I agree strongly), because (especially with fandom topics) people are apt to add extraneous images, e.g. related to the franchise but not to the specific subject of the article. One can easily make an argument that a particular image is fantastically important, in some other context, yet the presence of so-and-so in it may not be important at all to the topic of so-and-so.  It's a clarity and anti-gaming provision. If we try to compress this to something like "in the article's context" it's just going to be meaningless buzzwords; "context" itself actually has to have a context. The word itself is useful against another pair of gaming holes (details below).  I think it can be compressed to "in the topic's context", since "the article" and its "topic" are essentially the same thing here, constrains this to the topic of the article prevents the franchise-gaming misinterpretation that something like "in the article's context" means "in the context in which the article resides", i.e. the entire category of related articles.
 * "Often an important part of an article" already auto-implied "of some articles", but I revised enough that this is moot.
 * More than one editor wants to make this point about images aiding understanding (especially with regard to WP being a multimedia thing, which this version buries in a link to avoid brow-beating). I don't feel super-strongly about it, but was trying to merge everyone's demands, not cater just to my own desires (other than adding the thing about over-use). I've tried compressing it, but keeping both "understanding" and the multimedia education. link.
 * If Images must aid the reader's understanding, instead of being primarily decorative is meant to replace all of the older "Images must be significant and illustrative in the context of an article's topic, rather than primarily decorative. They are often an important part of an article, aiding readers' understanding, which is now trimmed to Images must be significant and illustrative in the topic's context, not primarily decorative. They are often an important aid to understanding, that's too much loss of key words. "Significant" is already a compression of "significant and relevant" [and "on-topic", in one draft, plus "related" in another]. "Illustrative" also replaced some off-base concepts about "informative" and such, which mostly applies to graphs and the like; I think at least 3 of us wanted "illustrative".
 * My original draft also had "of the topic" after "understanding" and I dropped it as redundant, as you realized too.
 * I initially wanted some kind of "not decorative!" line drawn, but others had already expressed concerns about this, so I backed off. The "primarily decorative" in most of the drafts seems a workable compromise.
 * especially on pages that have few visuals – Do we not want to make the point without belabouring it that people should go out of their way to fix or replace an image if it's the only one or the most important one on a page with only two? I did shorten it, though.  At some point, too much shortening is no longer plain English, but awkward and hard to parse.  It's already kind of pushing it; I tried ending just at the word "few", meaning "images" but it read as meaning "few bad ones".
 * I did cut "an excessive number will be distracting in any article" down to "too many can be distracting." I was trying to more sharply distinguish between 'articles that don't need images' and 'overuse of images anywhere', but I guess it's not really necessary.


 * On things like "context", vs. compressing away all nuance: The "context" wording thwarts a related pair of gaming loopholes, of the idea that an image is significant to the subject (e.g. a BLP or a corporation) themselves in their own minds or illustrative of something the subject wants to illustrate (a product line, etc.); that could lead to be attempts to insert things as "significant" that for WP are not (e.g. a painter's own favorite, which RS don't remark upon as a good example of their work). Or, vice versa, attempts to remove an image on the basis that there aren't any sources that the subject themselves found the image or what it illustrates to be significant. I really do try to anticipate loopholes when I write this stuff, because I've seen it all by this point.


 * Anecdote: One of my pool leagues has a rule that seems to some like it should not need to be stated. Everyone calls it the "Asshole John" rule, because of a certain player who tried to rule-lawyer a few years ago. In looking over the rulesets of other leagues, I see similar points that are clearly those leagues' "Asshole Whoever" rules. It's just a fact of rulesets that you either have to account for poor (or bad-faith) interpretations of them in their own wording, or you have to have another body of supplementary rules that does so, e.g. a referee interpretation guide serving as something like "caselaw". But WP has virtually no precedent system like that (except in a few cubbyholes like CfD), so we have little choice but to account for boneheads in the main ruleset.


 * Hopefully the new version will be broadly satisfactory.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  11:13, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Vastly improved. To reduce ambiguity re "when possible", how about:
 * important aid to understanding. Find better images and improve captions when possible, rather than simply
 * to
 * important aid to understanding, so when possible find better images and improve captions, rather than simply
 *  E Eng  21:43, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I tweaked it in that direction (without the "So," which isn't necessary), and the "so when possible find" construction is a construction that in formal writing would need two commas ("so, when possible, find..."), making it awkward.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:58, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You're a very smart guy, SM, but don't mistake something Miss Snodgrass taught you when you were 13 for a rigid rule; there are few places where commas are required. "important aid to understanding, so when possible find" would be perfectly OK, and the reason I was hoping to tie "important" to "when possible find" was so that "important" would have some reason to be there (i.e. to motivate the when-possible-finding), instead of being just a MOSbloat statement of the obvious, to wit that a picture is worth a 1000 words. Anyway, now that 10,000 words have been spent on these 20 words, can you just go install your version, if all the handwringing is over?  E Eng  05:45, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * SMcCandlish, thank you for helping with this. Your participation in this dispute has moved things along quite well, and I very much appreciate it. It's like a breath of fresh air, really. I am fine with the latest proposals (meaning the ones in this section), but I think "Images must be significant and illustrative" is not clear. "Significant" can mean a number of things, and "illustrative" is a bit confusing since images are going to be illustrative no matter what. I think "significant" should be "relevant." I definitely think we should maintain the "relevant" aspect. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:09, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I used to be a professional policy analyst, and am glad to lend a hand in this sort of thing when I can.  Re: "significant" and "illustrative" – What did you have in mind regarding "illustrative"? This has been picked over so much, it's difficult to picture (pun intended) any replacements that are not going to raise another round of objections. I didn't come up with either of these words, but am not sure I agree they're problematic, and at this point it would probably be better to run with this version, leave it a lone a while, and see what the rest of WP has to say about it.  Even a single additional editor with no "dog in the fight" a month from now might produce improvements none of us thought of.  The problem with "relevant" is that it's a very low standard, and is frequently interpreted to mean "connected to the topic or context in any way". This very problem has been a sticking point for many years in the development of a WP guideline on relevance/significance/anti-trivia. "Illustration" actually has a narrow definition in publishing, which directly applies here (however, our own article Illustration is weak, and only addresses portraiture and landscape, and suggests decorative use, which is not what the term really encompasses.  I'll add improving that article to my to-do list....

Illustration is a term of art in publishing; it doesn't mean "image", but "relevant image that helps the reader visualize or otherwise better understand the written material it accompanies, and is not present simply to get attention, to break up layout blocks, or just be visually appealing", in short. Because something has to be relevant in order to be illustrative, adding "relevant" would be conceptually redundant, while "significant' is not; it's very easy to over-illustrate with insignificant (trivial) detail. Not all artists are illustrators, and not all graphic design is illustration. "Significant" is a word WP uses frequently, at WP:N and other policies, guidelines on lists and categories, and at essays on WP:RELEVANCE, and many other places. It is always open to interpretation and this seems to be by community design; it's something of a "let WP:CONSENSUS and WP:COMMONSENSE be your guide as to what is really WP:ENCyclopedic" term of art in and of itself around here.  That said, I'm not wedded to it, and included it because most of the drafts I synthesized did, so it seems to represent the forming consensus.  I feel more strongly about "illustration" which makes sense in the context and replaced "informative" which really only applies to info-graphics like charts, or photos that contain crucial details and are not general depictions. PS: The latest serious proposal for merging all the "relevance", "significance", "stay on topic", and "avoid trivia" essays into a guideline was actually favoring the title "Significance" (or one with that as the main word) because of problems with both "trivia" and "relevance".


 * Don't know if that assuages or not.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:58, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Seems like you interchanged mixed up the order of some letters in sausages. And remember, the two things you never want to watch being made are assuages and vegetation.  E Eng  06:04, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Hmm, good points. I prefer "relevant" because Wikipedians (the experienced ones anyway), from what I've generally seen, usually understand that the image should be on-topic. And when editors remove images, they commonly state "irrelevant," "off-topic," "not needed," and similar. I've seen that people generally agree on what "relevant" means, but they more so have different views on what "significant" means. I fear that "significant" will lead to many debates about what image is significant or not. As for editors possibly adding any and every image because they view it as relevant, this is why we've included the "images generally should not be decorative" aspect, and have the Manual of Style/Images section. The guideline also currently states "direct relevance," if that helps. I also think "significant" is adequately covered by the "images are often an important aid to understanding" part of your proposals. As for using "illustrative," I don't strongly oppose that, and I don't have a suggestion for what could replace it. So I would go with "Images must be relevant and illustrative" in place of "Images must be significant and illustrative." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:31, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * See new text above. I juggled stuff around, and was able to work in "relevant", which Carlotm also wanted, without doing any "violence" to the text. I merged the illustrative bit into the multimedia ed. link, and when paired directly with "significant" I realized that "relevance" doesn't have the "it can mean whatever I want it to mean, including on-topic trivia" problem (which isn't about the of images included, but, well, their significance versus triviality; it could affect an article with only one image). The guideline elsewhere addressing relevance was another reason I didn't see a need to include it.  At this point we've spent about as much time on this basic statement, which has meant pretty much the same thing in all versions, as Congress or Parliament usually spends on text of similar length but much more significance in major legislation. :-)  Hopefully everyone can live with this version. PS: If you're happy with this version, note that you're still Supporting prop. 1, which may be seen as "winning" since it has two support. :-)  In the end we may need to close and restart the RfC with a single proposal.  — SMcCandlish' ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:25, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * While I still think there will be "What is significant?" debates by including "significant," I'm good with your new proposal. Thanks. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:23, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * NP. To paraphrase a rap song, "wikilawyas gonna wikilawya".  Any other term like "relevant" or "on-topic" is just as presently uncodified in policy as "significant", but we use that one with pretty consistent meaning in multiple places, so it's probably the least likely to be gamed this way.  I intend to see to it (or help see to it) that a WP:Significance guideline evolves some time this year from all the scattered pages on the topic. Or at least a merged, consistent essay that pools the others.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:53, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * , I'm surprised at you. There's nothing funny about rap.  E Eng  15:56, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * "This is not the East or the West Side." "No, it's not."  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  18:01, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Lest others think I've fallen asleep in class, I'd better confirm that I too have no vehement objections to

Certainly it's a little bit more verbose and less crisp than I'd ideally like but I'd like to thank everyone for staying the course and arriving at consensual text. BushelCandle (talk) 23:40, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I oppose "images must be significant". Someone's going to misread that as meaning that the image itself must be "significant", e.g., notable or important to the world.  This will be read as a ban on using run-of-the-mill images to illustrate run-of-the-mill subjects.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I must admit I suddenly did a double-take when your name suddenly popped up here, WhatamIdoing - then I realised I was confusing you with Whatshouldichoose and breathed a sigh of relief.
 * Can you suggest alternative wording, please? BushelCandle (talk) 02:50, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I haven't yet seen anyone explain how they want to change editors' behavior (e.g., to encourage more of X, or to stop pointless disputes about Y), so I think this discussion and all of these proposed changes are largely a waste of time. #6 is the only one whose wording will result in stupid disputes; therefore I oppose it.  The others appear to be exercises in "No, let's write this guideline in my favorite writing style!"  They will have no actual effect on anybody; consequently, IMO this is about as pointful as arguing over which font should be used.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Discussion area
Just a brief comment here that I modified Proposal 2 before other opinions started flying in. This is a result of the feedback I received earlier, and after a 3rd and 4th look at the grammar. Hopefully, that's not an issue with anyone. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:38, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


 * That's fine. I did wonder why it looked a little different when I just voted "Support," especially since it looked like the version after the tweaks, which is the version I preferred when it came to your proposal. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:44, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * My apologies for any confusion it briefly caused! --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:46, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I removed the delete-and-insert markup to make it readable.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:24, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * This is something of a side comment {but indirectly related to the question in the RFC)... I think it is important to say that images should illustrate things that are stated in the article text. That gives the image a purpose beyond mere decoration.  Also, since any text an image is illustrating must be verifiable... saying this will help prevents Original Research and Venerability problems that can be introduced though images. Blueboar (talk) 19:49, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * If I may add a sixth proposal:
 * Being Wikipedia a multimedia project, relevant and on topic images, and their captions, are an important part of any article's presentation. Improving quality and choice of images in articles, rather than tending to their removal, should be favored.
 * Though I am of the opinion that these little retouches are a waste of time. A much in depth revision of all images' related pages is warranted. Carlotm (talk) 01:42, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't notice this until after already posting a sixth-proposal section. I think it addresses what you are getting at here, and some of your proposed wording couldn't be integrated ("Being Wikipedia a" isn't grammatical; "relevant and on-topic" is redundant; it's not true that "any" article is improved by images, only most of them). The "multimedia" point is preserved by the link to multimedia education.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:13, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Revised sixth proposal:
 * In Wikipedia, a multimedia project, relevant and on topic images, and their captions, may be an important part of an article's presentation. Improving quality and choice of images, rather than tending to their removal, should be favored.
 * Carlotm (talk) 06:38, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Still has the redundancy; "on-topic" (which is hyphenated as a compound adjective) means the same thing as "relevant". We don't need to explicitly tell people the obvious; even brand-new people know that WP, like virtually all websites, is multimedia. The important point about multimedia here is the role it plays in informing, which is why we're linking to multimedia education.  What is "choice" of images? Who is choosing what and from where? In what way is this guidance? "Tending to their removal" doesn't really parse. Do you mean seeing to their removal, or leaning toward their removal?  "Sound be favored" isn't guideline language (not in WP's style, anyway).  All of these points (to the extent I understand what they're intended to mean) are already covered in the 6th proposal that is actually a proposal section. This buried one is sort of a "5.5th proposal" at this point.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:58, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * "On-topic" and "relevant" are not the same thing. Their slightly different meaning, especially when paired, is quite easily to follow. Although it may be evident that Wikipedia is a multimedia project, editors are often forgetting it. "Tending", whether "acting toward", or "looking after" (their removal), is a reader's choice. I agree that the so-called sixth proposal, which in temporal order is a seventh proposal, is quite close to this one, notwithstanding reader's inability to understand it. Still the seventh appears too prosaic and obvious, in my opinion of course. Carlotm (talk) 21:53, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm skeptical that many editors would agree with your view of "on-topic" and "relevant"; various templates relating to the concept(s) have been merged for example, and there's an on-hold proposed project to merge most of the essays listed at WP:RELEVANCE because so few people draw distinctions that fine. You've not spelled out what you think the difference is, much less why it's crucial, so I'm going to move on; they're that we don't need to use both of them; almost all the objections to all drafts have been over wordiness, especially redundant and over-explanatory types.  The fact that you're actively intending "tending" to be ambiguous kind of proves my point about it.  I'm glad you feel the proposals are simpatico. I don't think anyone cares what the numbering is. Yours is buried in a talk section, so virtually on one will see it. That's why I already took pains to integrate what I could from it into the synthesis draft and explained why some of it couldn't practically be integrated using the given wording.  We have no feedback from any readers that they can't understand it. And, it's guideline material mostly for new-ish editor, so it needs to be prosaic enough to be explanatory without requiring previous "community experience" about things that are only obvious to those who have it.  Hopefully this is enough to resolve your concerns, otherwise this will just get circular.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:29, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Closing RfC
This RfC has been listed at Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure for sometime. Should someone here who hasn't been involved, or heavily involved, in this discussion simply close it as consensus for SMcCandlish's proposal in the section above? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:29, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

What does this mean?
Well, I suppose that congratulations are in order for anyone whose goal in this RFC was to get grammar errors into the guideline. (Let's see: That was... nobody.  So we all lose.)  "When possible, find better images and improve captions rather than simply remove poor or inappropriate ones"... will not earn any points in a grammar contest.

On the more "significant" issue, if someone could please explain to me what "Images must be significant" is supposed to mean, then I'd be happy to revise it to say something sensible. Among the options already considered and discarded are "Images must be statistically significant", "Images must be significant in size", and "Images must have historical significance". I'm sure that I – and any wikilawyer trying to get a disliked image removed from an article – could come up with more, but that should be enough to illustrate the problem to anyone who didn't find it obvious.

SMcCandlish, perhaps you're best placed to answer my question about this strange phrase? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:52, 25 June 2016 (UTC)


 * As seen with my "20:31, 3 March 2016 (UTC)" post a little above, I objected to "significant." I would repeat what I stated, but editors can simply scroll up. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:43, 25 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I detect no grammar error in the passage you highlight, WhatamIdoing, though some might want to add a comma. The structure is quite straightforward: Conditional; if yes: verb1 (object1) and verb (object2); implied "if no": verb3 (stand-in for object1+object2). Reduced to its essentials, the sentence is: "Find and improve rather than remove." "Significance" is deliberately left to editorial discretion, for consensus formation at the affected article, just like virtually all questions of relevance on Wikipedia. The closest we have to policy on this are: WP:NOT, as a general (both broad and unspecific) principle on content; WP:Notability, which only applies to whether a topic may have its own entire article, not whether something can be included in an article; and MOS:TRIVIA and associated trivia essays, which are about paring down and replacing laundry lists of details with more focused prose. Various attempts over the years to formulate some kind of guideline for in-context relevance/significance/importance/encyclopedia-worthiness at the intra-article level have all failed, either outright or through fizzling out before the WP:PROPOSAL process.  Wikipedia gets along just fine, it seems, by applying a WP:Common sense approach to the matter, without instructions creep trying to spell it out.  Image significance in MOS:IMAGES not being specifically limited to "statistical significance" (or anything else narrow you've suggested) is why wikilawyers don't and can't "get a disliked image removed from an article" with such a gaming technique. The very fact that it's not happening is evidence against your assertion that the present wording must lead to such a result. What you call a "problem" is a strength; image-poor, text-dense Wikipedia is making it fairly difficult to delete images without cause.  Finally, there is no other practical place to put something about image relevance/significance/encyclopedia-worthiness/importance, nor any consensus to be more specific. We have this guideline on images, and there are the images how-to pages (which have the status of essays). There is no content guideline about intra-article inclusion-worthiness of content (images or otherwise) at which to define something about this narrowly, and I would bet a bazillion dollars that the community would not support an attempt to create one, nor to shoe-horn something about this into the WP:Image use policy.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:43, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It says "When possible, do this rather than do that". I'm pretty certain that it should say, "When possible, do this rather than do ing that" instead.
 * I disagree that we're merely leaving the interpretation of significance "to editorial discretion". I think we are being completely unclear about what kind of significance we intend here.  The previous version was pretty clear:  "Images should have significance and direct relevance to the topic".  (Q:  What kind of significance?  A:  Significance to the topic of the article.  The image itself doesn't have to be significant (e.g., historical significance), but it does have to have a significant relationship to the subject of the article.) "The images must be significant" does not have the same meaning.  (Q:  What kind of significance?  A:  The image itself has to be significant.  It doesn't need to be significant to the article's subject, though.  You can spam a historically significant image into any article that's plausibly related.)
 * The fact that we don't have disputes over this is because WP:Nobody reads the directions, so it takes a while for unclear statements like this to produce needless disputes.
 * I think this is a great page on which to include this information, and I think there actually is a consensus to not use this particularly opaque phrase (which was specifically objected to by at least two people in the previous discussion). It would be better to be clear about what we mean than to be confusing.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:44, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Two lead images?
Although it is implied in several places that a given Wikipedia article will have only one image in the lead section, I can find nothing that specifically discourages the presence of two (e.g., in the current article on Guyenne). Is there really nothing specific about this (either way) anywhere? Should we develop a guideline or policy? Is this worth having an RfC to discuss? Ambiguity is the Devil's tennis ball... Thoughts? Thanks! KDS4444 (talk) 05:17, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * No, no, and no! Although I don't like that one, which leaves both images much too small to be any use. Johnbod (talk) 12:58, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * So I split them - before. Johnbod (talk) 13:03, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Exactly! It looked weird to me as well, and I could not recall any instance where a lead was set up that way, but then could find nothing to guide me on what should be done about it, if anything.  Maybe that is instruction creep, and maybe it happens too rarely to bother offering guidance about (?).  Thank you for fixing the problem regardless.  The article looks better now, no RfC necessary, you are right.  KDS4444 (talk) 17:01, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Some infoboxes have support for at least two images. I don't think it's commonly used, though.
 * "The lead image" would presumably be whichever one appears first, even when there are multiple images in the initial section. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:41, 25 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Definitely no rule against this, nor should there be. Agreed with Johnbod that arranging them vertically is better; that's our usual way of handling images. One issue with lead images is that the first one you see on the page will not be what the navigation popups gadget displays, if that image is inside an infobox or other template. This can result in some confusing popups. It is a very good idea to ensure that the first non-infobox, regular-ol'  image in an article will be sensible and in some way representative of the subject if it appears as the popup's thumbnail.  As an example of what can happen, I remember looking at an actress's page in popup, and it showed a picture of Bruce Willis's mug, because there was only one pic of her, in an infobox, followed by a gratuitous pic of Willis next to mention of her having co-starred in a movie with him. This kind of "visual name-dropping" is an annoying fad in entertainment journalism, and should not be used in an encyclopedic context. PS: I've attempted to lodge a Phabricator request have that problem with the popup tool get fixed, but my LDAP account has been bollixed ever since they rolled out WP:SUL, and I cannot actually login to the Wikimedia Phabricator server at all yet. Ironically, I can't file a bug report about this situation, since it requires access to Phabricator to do so; I asked someone at Meta to look into it for me. Anyway, point being, it would probably be good idea for others to request that the nav popups gadget be tweaked to use the infobox image if there is one.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:33, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * NAVPOPS is only used by a small group of relatively experienced logged-in editors, which is a very tiny fraction of people reading our articles. It would be nice if NAVPOPS pulled images from the infobox (Hovercards can), but I don't think we should rearrange pages to work around NAVPOPS' limitations.  That said, I'm in favor of having good, relevant images in the article, especially towards the top.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:55, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * If you follow the WMF scuttlebutt, it's been implemented site-wide at some Wikipedias and other WMF sites, and is expected to be a default feature of all them eventually. But, yes, it's not a central concern at en.wiki right now.  That's why I'm just mentioning it in talk and not suggesting the guideline address it directly.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:12, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The deployment of Hovercards (to several smaller wikis that specifically requested it) was announced a while ago. The product has just changed hands (from "Reading" [which is mostly mobile] to "Discovery" [which is mostly search]).  Consequently, any previously announced plans could be changed.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:37, 26 June 2016 (UTC)