Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2025 January 10

Welcome to the Wikipedia Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.

January 10

Section, image; section, image; section, image....

The layout of Portraits of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart presents no hindrance to understanding, but is unusually ugly. (For the layout, the editor to blame is me.) Perhaps I'm caffeine-deprived, but I can neither think of a potential solution nor find one within Help:Pictures. (Alternating left, right, left, right ... would reduce the monotony and save space, but would bring its own problems.) Suggestions? -- Hoary (talk) 00:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

As a reader, I think Help:Pictures#Without_flowing_text to the left would be easiest to view. Heading identifies the image; image immediately below heading; then text; next heading... Schazjmd (talk) 00:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

But Schazjmd, if I understand this right, it would lead to yet more empty space and a (visually) longer article with more need for scrolling. If so, then no. But I appreciate the suggestion that the captions are pretty much redundant. (They were added back when virtually all the images were in a gallery near the foot of the article, an arrangement that required captions.) I shan't remove the captions till either the larger problem has been resolved or it's clear that there is no good solution to that larger problem; however, I'll keep their removal in mind. (Pinging NeoGaze and CurryTime7-24.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I initially took as a model the article on portraits of Johann Sebastian Bach, but it obviously has fewer pictures and thus the gallery worked better. I think that what was done in the italian version of that article is a good option if you don't specially care about picture distribution consistency. Another possibility would to manually modify the size of the paintings to match each paragraph. I tested this myself and it was even worse and more inconsistent, specially in the inauthentic part of the portraits, which has less text and thus you end with almost illegible pictures. NeoGaze (talk) 12:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

The layout of the Italian Bach page is less monotonous than that of the English Mozart page, NeoGaze, but it would waste just as much space (unless other measures were also taken). -- Hoary (talk) 12:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I have seen some articles with "mini-galleries" at places in the article. I don't know if that would improve things here. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:44, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

It's a possibility, Gråbergs Gråa Sång, but it would set up a hurdle for the reader: matching the text to the image. -- Hoary (talk) 12:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

You could try using the |upright= parameter to tweak the sizes of the images. Many would be fine if a bit smaller than the standard thumb. After all, if the reader wants to take a close look, they will click on the picture. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:44, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, good idea, Mike Turnbull. I'll do that (unless of course somebody beats me to it), remove (or comment out) the captions (after checking that they don't contain information that isn't also in the text), and perhaps do some left/right bouncing. But not until thirty-plus hours from now. -- Hoary (talk) 12:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I tried this myself and it didn't work very well, specially if you want to strictly adjust the size of a picture to a small portion of text. If you do this, you leave a picture so small that it can even be hard to notice it in the first place, let alone being visible to any degree. I have already removed the redundant captions, but not moved the pictures themselves. NeoGaze (talk) 18:58, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Not knowing the dimensions and resolution of a reader's device makes it impossible to do what is being attempted here. I recommend displaying images as thumbnails, with an "upright" value of, say, 1.2 for those in portrait orientation.

MOS:SANDWICH and MOS:IMAGELOC have helpful warnings about not using the default alignment of "right", especially regarding making text easier to visually scan.

A gallery layout may yet prove to be a good solution. Bazza 7 (talk) 20:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions, all. I'm still certain that the plus of visual compactness provided by mini-galleries is outweighed by the annoyance of a separation of specific image and specific text. But the monotony of right image, right image, right image weighed on me, so a few minutes ago I moved a few to the left. Having done so, I wonder whether this was an improvement: I fear that the reader might semiconsciously wonder whether there's some non-obvious significance to image placement ("Why this one on the left?"). Feel free to revert me. Btw, File:Mozart,_Wolfgang_Amadeus.jpg is a repellently saccharine concoction. One Elektromagikum has described it as their "own work". If it were my own work, I'd burn it. -- Hoary (talk) 01:01, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Please help with The Right to add A Footnote to An External Reference.

Hello Wikipedia Help Desk. I have earlier added This (CC-BY) Colour Circle to Wikimedia Commons: c:File:Subtractive Colour Circle 12 Hues.png. Yesterday, I hope This will be Alright, I have added This (CC-BY) Colour Circle, from Wikimedia Commons, into The Gallery, in This Wikipedia "Color Wheel" Article. I then wanted to add A Footnote, with An External Link, that would appear in The "References" List, to My Genuine - Self-Archiving - Green (OA) Open Access - Website with WordPress, that is Not A Blog, that is The Genuine Reference Source, for This (CC-BY) Colour Circle: https://ukmjenkins.wordpress.com/colourcircle. But, when I proceeded, I got A Huge Warning, to Not Contravene Wikipedia Policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. So, I did not proceed with adding This Footnote. Please may I now ask You All, in Wikipedia Help Desk, please may I, or may I not, add This Footnote to This External Link, please ? Please examine My Website with WordPress, if You All need to, please: https://ukmjenkins.wordpress.com. I promise, I am not engaging in Self-Promotion. I promise, This (CC-BY) Colour Circle is My Own Creative Artwork, to which I have freely applied The Creative Commons (CC-BY) Attribution Licence. I promise, This (CC-BY) Colour Circle is Not Original Research, but, is A Genuine Objective Development of The Established Historical Empirical Knowledge of The Color Wheel. RSVP. Best Wishes. Yours Faithfully. Michael Jenkins.Ukmjenkins (talk) 12:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC).

You already asked at Talk:Color wheel, Ukmjenkins. Better, I think, to have just one discussion, and to have it there rather than here. -- Hoary (talk) 12:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

@Ukmjenkins Thank you for your contributions, but unfortunately I don't think anyone can help you in adding your link. While external links do not have as strict of a criteria for inclusion as citations, they still need to be reliable enough for the purpose of providing further context and information on a subject. You can not claim that it is not an WP:OR when your site literally said "All My Colour Circles, here, for You,are my own Understandings." Wikipedia is not a place for personal expression. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 13:28, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

As an aside, @Ukmjenkins, your file would be much smaller and more useful in general if done as an .svg. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

(1) Thank You Tutwakhamoe. I have accepted Your Criticism of My Text in My Colour Circle Article, I have now worked to amend The Text, so that It is Correctly Objective. I promise My Intention is Not Self Expression.

(2) Thank You Michael D. Turnbull for Your Information on SVG. I have just read The Wikipedia Article on SVG. I am sorry, at That Time, I did not know about how Good SVG is. My Understanding, at That Time, was to provide High Resolution Lossless PNGs. I may now go back to The Beginning, in order to work to create The Equivalent Set of SVG Colour Circles.

(3) Ukmjenkins (talk) 17:56, 10 January 2025 (UTC).