Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by CBM (talk | contribs) at 03:13, 2 April 2009 (→Right-facing images: +). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Biography Stub‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Right-facing images

1. "It is often preferable to place images of faces so that the face or eyes look toward the text."- MoS The reason for this is that portraits facing away from the text are extremely unaesthetic.
2. The image of Hodgsonia heteroclita is superior to that of Victoria regia.
3. The botanist template {{Botanist-inline}} is problematic on 2 counts - firstly the phrasing is clumsy, secondly it assumes that all botanical authors are botanists, which Walter Hood Fitch was not - he was a botanical artist. Rotational (talk) 09:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

1. But number one in the MoS list is "Start an article with a right-aligned lead image or InfoBox." It is a reasonable presumption that the section you quoted applies to extra images. Jenuk1985 | Talk 10:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The photo should be aligned on the right side per MOS:IMAGES point 1: Start an article with a right-aligned lead image or InfoBox. I've never heard of the "facing the text" issue but I believe that it looks unaesthetic on the left side. When it comes down to it, I'd go with the manual of style first and possibly symmetry the photo in a photo editing program so that it fits both people's criteria. OlYeller 12:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I uploaded a left facing version of the photo. I then moved the photo to the right per the manual of style. Win-win? As for point 2, I don't know anything about the Hodgsonia heteroclita or Victoria regia so I'll stay out of that. As for point 3, the wording is trivial to me. If you have a problem with the wording, work on the template as it will improve many pages (all pages that use the template). As for the botanical artist/botanist issue, I don't see that it implies either. It simply says that it's his "botanical name" which may imply something to an expert (which I am not).OlYeller 12:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, I don't mean to accuse anyone but the template was put up for deletion without any reasons cited from an anon IP today. It seems sort of weird that someone would not like a template's use then it gets put up for deletion by an IP in the same day. If anyone from this discussion is involved, deleting a template because you don't like it and it proves your point is childish. OlYeller 13:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you're hallucinating - if you read the discussion on deleting the template, you may see that I favour keeping it ciao Rotational (talk) 13:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Because point 1 suggests starting an article with a right-aligned lead image, doesn't mean that you should stop reading. There are a whole bunch of ifs and buts that follow. It also plainly states "However, images should not be reversed simply to resolve a conflict between these guidelines" for OlYeller's benefit. and "It is often preferable to place images of faces so that the face or eyes look toward the text." It is not a reasonable presumption that the section applies to extra images. There is also a long-standing controversy about why lead images should be right-aligned when there is no compelling reason to do so - look up the debate in the MoS archives ciao Rotational (talk) 13:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

1. The text should precede the image in the lead. If there is an earlier image of the subject, and the article is expanded, the image could be placed further down. Faces are not symmetrical, images should not be reversed. Not the place to discuss these issues.

2. My source, given in one of my edit summaries, says:

"The great Amazonian water-lily Victoria regia merited four dedicated monographs. Walter Hood Fitch employed the new technique of chromolithography to create the great English series portraying this enormous flower in 1861. ... 10,000 botanical drawings in his lifetime, of which this is one of the most spectacular examples." LuEsther T. Mertz Library of The New York Botanical Garden

If you read this article, compare Sharp's later swipe of Fitch's illustration.

3. Not the best place for discussion of the template. He is noted as an "author" at IPNI. I expanded the article slightly, hope it gets some more useful contributions. cygnis insignis 15:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

You say "the text should precede the image in the lead", and so it did here - why did you find it necessary to change it to this? The image of Victoria regia might be interesting historically even though it appears drab on the page. Even so, it was included in this version - why did you change it? Rotational (talk) 07:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

We start with a right-aligned image because starting with a left-aligned image makes the article look like shit. The average person notices when the article layout looks like shit. The average person doesn't notice pretentious wankery like whether or not the subject of an image is looking towards the text. Hesperian 11:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Silly of us arguing about such trivia when all we needed to do from the outset was to consult you and benefit from your immense experience and mastery of English. Rotational (talk) 21:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to start by saying I saw wrong and that I should have read the rest of the guideline. I'll do my best not to make that mistake again. That being said, even though you're being facetious Rotational, you're right. This seems like a trivial argument (silly as you put it). It looks like crap the way it is (right justified). The photo facing right or left is trivial when it comes to the overall look of the article. Don't you have something better to do? Also, your attitude isn't going to convince or persuade anyone. I'll leave (and take this article off my watch list) with this quote. You’ll catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. In other words, your attitude sucks. OlYeller 00:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't I have anything better to do? Yes, I think so - I'd like to get on with writing new articles without having to waste time fighting off posturing, foul-mouthed editors or win popularity contests by putting out more honey. Rotational (talk) 03:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Ignore the MOS. Just do whatever looks better. Prodego 02:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't mean to edit conflict you Prodego; I came from AN, saw the TOC floated right, and just edited it out of instinct. In general the TOC should not be floated anywhere, just left to hang out in the place mediawiki puts it, so I usually just fix these when I see them. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I think it makes more sense to put the image on the right ande ignore the eyes, or upload a reversed version if the eyes are too worrisome. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• Stub-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles