Talk:Ludwig Adolph Timotheus Radlkofer

Image placement

Greetings! If I may suggest, I do believe that the language in the style guides at WP:MOSIM is quite clear with regard to image placement in this case. The two principles would be:

• "Infoboxes, images, and related content in the lead must be right-aligned."
• "It is often preferable to place images of faces so that the face or eyes look toward the text. However, it is not necessary to reverse an image simply to have the subject facing the text."

(Emphasis added) So, even though it is "often preferable" to have the image looking into the text because of the orientation of the face or eyes it must be right-aligned because it is the lead image. "Must" is stronger language than "often preferable" and this is consensus from quite a long time ago regarding lead images and infoboxes. It could be argued that this is a case where it is not preferable to place an image such as this with a face looking toward the text. I would ask that the outcome of this discussion be that you move the image back to being right-aligned. Another alternative would be to construct an infobox around it, thus solving the issue. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 13:35, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

We've been through this before - "right-aligned" does not trump "facing into text". I'm sure you'd like to take this up at the ANI. Paul venter (talk) 09:25, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but it does in the lead. The language of the MOS is quite clear. The lead image must be right-aligned whereas it is only often preferable but not a requirement that images of faces look into the text. You have provided no evidence to support your assertion to the contrary. Further, your second edit made the situation worse in that it now sandwiches text between two images. WP:MOSIM: "Avoid sandwiching text between two images that face each other, and between an image and an infobox or similar."

ANI is unnecessary, though I'm still baffled by why you resist acknowledging the consensus of WP:MOSIM. I have seen you reverted by other editors when you place lead images on the left, as they are also correctly applying the consensus view that we start an article with a right-aligned image. I have provided the rationale once again that yes, indeed, one provision does trump the other when it comes to the lead image. That's why the guideline was written that way. An easy way to resolve the issue to ask for clarification from the MOS on whether a lead face image can be left-aligned or if it should still be right-aligned even if it will be looking off the page. If we take the discussion there, will we both respect the consensus of the editors and either (in my case) leave left-aligned lead face images alone or (in your case) begin all articles with a right-aligned image or infobox? Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 04:36, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

The language of the MOS might be quite clear to you, but having seen consensus in action on numerous occasions, I for one know that the wording of a guideline is more often than not cobbled together and that the result is not a triumph of prose or reason. Therefore I feel that being hyper-pedantic and analysing the MOS in terms of commas and the exact meaning of a phrase, is simply a waste of everyone's time. The bottom line is that there is no compelling reason for starting an article with a right-aligned image, especially if it flies in the face of good taste, a quality sadly lacking in WP. As I have asked repeatedly, let another editor change the placement of the image if they find that it offends them, but your own credibility is tainted in view of your past history of stalking and reverts. Paul venter (talk) 09:52, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way, but Wikipedia works through discussion and seeking consensus. Since you think this may be a waste of time, I have asked for clarification from editors concerned with the MOS at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#WP:MOSIM - lead image on the right even if a face image away from text?. Please share any thoughts you have there if you think I misrepresented our brief discussion or the nature of the disagreement. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 14:24, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I saw this issue raised at MOS. When I first came to Wikipedia, I found several aspects of page layout troubling. I came from a print background, and have worked as a layout editor for a daily newspaper (broadsheet). On pages with multiple stories, directionality helps organize the viewer's gaze in understanding at a glance what goes with what. I'm not sure whether "looking off the page" matters that much in the online environment in general, but particularly at the top of a Wikipedia article, where the reader has chosen to look up the topic and need not be beguiled. More to the point, my understanding is that there are technical issues that dictate right placement. Wikipedia layout is designed for maximum flexibility to accommodate use on various devices, hence a need to standardize the top of the article in several ways, including right-aligned graphics, not flowing text around the TOC, and not sandwiching text between two graphics. Just because it looks tasteful on the device you or I might be using doesn't mean it works on all the devices on which WP is intended to be read. if you format the article Ludwig Adolph Timotheus Radlkofer as a pdf with its current layout, the flower image appears right-aligned at top, but the photograph is right-aligned directly under it. I didn't test what might happen if you used this layout in creating a book. At any rate, the consensus on MOS layout guidelines draws on the knowledge of editors concerned with reading accessibility and the various formats in which an article might be used. What seems aesthetically pleasing on the screen I use may not be when viewed on other devices. (Secondary point: in my opinion, reversing an image for its directionality is factually misleading and thus contrary to the purpose of an encyclopedia, particularly if the image is historical photography or a work of art—though images or graphics created specifically as illustrations for Wikipedia could be reversed.) Just two cents' worth. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:46, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that if "there are technical issues that dictate right placement" then it is the technical issues that need to be resolved, and article layout and good taste should not play second fiddle to technical problems. That said, a lot of obdurate editors have a very generous view of what constitutes the lead in an article, so that even the placing of an image well below the lead and on the left, is considered a flagrant violation of the venerable MOS. I am constantly amazed that they tolerate ANY images on the left. Paul venter (talk) 09:35, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'll be the first to admit that I do prefer right aligned images in general, but I find it to be particularly important at the beginning of an article, or even a section because English is read from left-to-right. Articles should begin with the text of the article, and putting the image first undermines that. Just my 2¢. oknazevad (talk) 17:26, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed that "English is read from left-to-right", but difficult to see how an image on the left interferes with that - once the eye and mind have determined where the text is, the positioning of images is ignored. Paul venter (talk) 07:56, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

The article is very small so why not place the image in the middle afteer the text but before the refs.Moxy (talk) 05:50, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Ludwig Adolph Timotheus Radlkofer in 1870

Greyia radlkoferi occurring in South Africa and named after Ludwig Radlkofer

So, despite my original comments, the consensus view displayed in the text of the MOS, and apparent consensus here on the talk page that the lead image of the subject of the article - if that is indeed the only one available - should be right-aligned, the image is still left-aligned, last configured that way by Paul venter in this edit. It's time to stop ignoring consensus, so I'll place the image on the right once more. I would suggest to Paul that if he really wanted to take this issue up in the proper forum, it would be at the MOS talk page. Perhaps with a clear argument you could change a few minds, but I haven't seen any convincing argument advanced here. Rkitko ^(talk) 03:38, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Your summary is a brazen misinterpretation of the comments by just 2 editors:-

• "Personally I would normally place all lead images to the right but there are some exceptions in the spirit of WP:IAR. It doesn't matter too much in an article with low views like this."
• "That is, the preference for center-looking images is followed where convenient, but not slavishly so where it would conflict with other style and/or quality concerns."

Paul venter (talk) 09:06, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

No, I rather think you are reading too much into their comments. Cynwolfe identified technical reasons why the MOS would call for the lead image to be right-aligned and also suggested that a right-aligned image would lead to fewer (initially) beguiled readers. Oknazevad also said it's important to place images on the right at the beginning of the article and within sections; while Oknazevad did mention personal preference in the beginning the goal of the statement was to say that it was not just personal preference but also consistent with good sense and guidelines. The last editor, Moxy, was just provided another possible solution and not suggesting a preference. I'm baffled by your escalation to a slow-moving edit war over this simple matter after several editors have made attempts to explain different aspects of the manual of style's guideline on right-aligned lead images. I would prefer that you revert your own last edit so that we could put this matter to rest. Rkitko ^(talk) 00:02, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Having the image on the left is without dough odd looking. That said it does not impend readability and the downlodable version looks fine - so not a big deal. Is there other examples of this format here? Anyways will have to warn (as a long time editor) that it will be change to the right side by casual editors in the future just because they will also think its a bit odd.Moxy (talk) 04:05, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

A good number of the other language Wikipedia entries on this subject have a right-aligned infobox for the botanist, as do many of the associated scientists he has been linked to. I see no reason not to follow the MOS, existing consensus, all other articles, over the objection of a single editor who has provided no compelling argument why beginning with the image on the left is less jarring than a right-aligned face image that faces off the screen. The infobox is a standard tool (always right-aligned) used to summarize article content, so I hope there will be no objections. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 22:59, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Using an infobox to enforce a right-aligned image does not solve the problem of a right-facing image. Citing the MOS as supporting this move is a perversion of the facts, as is claiming consensus and "all other articles". I think this issue merits a discussion involving more than 2-3 editors, as took place here. Paul venter (talk) 07:09, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, Paul, but you have still shown no compelling reason why a left-aligned image is preferable in this case other than your personal preference. All available supporting discussions, the MOS, other language articles on this biography, and other scientist articles lead one to the only conclusion available: that consensus is in favor of only a right-aligned lead image. I don't see how you come to any other conclusion with the language at WP:MOSIM. I would also suggest that you not revert the addition of the infobox, which is a general improvement for the article. It does settle the issue since the infobox is right-aligned, but as botanist articles should eventually receive an infobox this was merely done earlier than it otherwise might have. So you'd eventually end up with a right-aligned image anyway when some other editor came along and added the infobox! Would you have reverted their efforts as well? Rkitko ^(talk) 00:06, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

As I have pointed out repeatedly in our troubled relationship, your edits of my contributions and your stalking and harassing go way beyond that of an impartial editor striving only to improve WP. You have become obsessed with having your way AND deliberately misinterpreting the comments and attitudes of other editors. In short, you have long since forfeited your claim of being a disinterested party. I have invited you on numerous occasions to step back from an issue and allow other editors to correct my 'aberrant ways' - this you consistently refuse to do. I consider myself a conscientious and productive editor, and I do not spend time being a big brother to other editors - I do wish that you would do the same. Paul venter (talk) 07:34, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

This is more a matter of discussion of editor behavior, which is best done on user talk pages and not the talk page for the article, but if I could respond briefly I would note that other editors do challenge your style choices and you revert them just the same (e.g. User: Nononsenseplease moved the image of the subject to the top right on George Nicholson (horticulturalist), an article you created, and then you reverted). Few have chosen to pursue the matter, but it appears to me a bit of an ownership phenomenon, otherwise you could articulate some decent reason to maintain the abnormal placement or support your choice with guidelines from our manual of style. Rkitko ^(talk) 01:24, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Other editors do not have a history of stalking and harassing me that extends over many years - you are the only one to do so and to be unreceptive to any new idea, and worst of all, the only one with an almost religious conviction of being correct and acting out the role of being Wikipedia's saviour. You may also benefit from reading Aaron Swartz's article at [1] Paul venter (talk) 07:31, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

So when faced with evidence of other editors also disagreeing with your style choice, bringing the article in line with Wikipedia guidelines, and your pattern of reverting to maintain said preferred style, you don't choose to re-examine your own behavior but assume the other party is incorrect. As I have said on numerous occasions, I have many articles on my watchlist - about 3000 - and sometimes your editing path crosses my watchlist. A correct and proper use of one's contribution history is, if an issue is noticed, to check for other similar issues and correct it. I found a few these last few months that generated this discussion and the others over visual media. I now noticed you've been reverted by other editors at sandfall for trying to introduce visual material as a reference there. (How many times must people tell you something before you are convinced it is consensus? Or will you go on ignoring it?) Here again we have a similar issue. Several editors gave some compelling reasons why the lead image should be right-aligned, as our manual of style plainly states. And yet you persist in your rather clear pointed edits motivated by ownership of this article. I recall earlier that you had similar strong feeling against WP:HEAD and taxoboxes. You abused heading style and removed taxoboxes from articles. If I may ask, what made you finally follow consensus on those issues? Can we skip the middle bit with the escalated edit war and where you created sock puppets to continue editing to avoid a block to keep on with those aberrant style choices and get to the end where you accepted consensus? We've had two long discussions with a decent amount of input that all seems to be in favor of 1) a right-aligned image for the lead and (on the other issue) 2) user-generated images are not reliable sources. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 14:54, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Other editors don't make a crusade of targeting me. Your argument about our editing paths only crossing occasionally is patent nonsense as borne out by your recent interest in Calappa calappa and Sir John Barrow, 1st Baronet. The debate about visual material as references has not resulted in a decision and the guidelines on reliable sources do not even mention images, so that your judgements in the matter are obviously premature if not irrelevant. I see no mention of "subject of the article should be the lead image" in WP:MOSIM#Images - did you also fabricate this when you altered my edit at Sir John Barrow, 1st Baronet? Paul venter (talk) 10:15, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I suggest the article use the cropped version of the picture. In addition to cutting out the stained frame (who cares to see that?), it happens to face left, solving the problem of whether to put the (old) picture on the left or have it facing away from the text: it can be on the right and face into the text. That should make everyone happy (unless you would be happier continuing a lame dispute). -sche (talk) 16:42, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

-sche, cutting out the frame is an improvement, I think, but flipping the image is not. MOS:IMAGES#Editing images is fairly clear about when it's appropriate to reverse an image: "it is normally acceptable to reverse or rotate an image of objects whose orientation is unimportant or arbitrary, like soap bubbles or bacteria." The orientation of a portrait is certainly not arbitrary, as an individual's face is not symmetrical and we cannot present the left side as if it were the right side. I remember reading in the guidelines years ago when they had more examples that, specifically, a profile photo of Mikhail Gorbachev would certainly never be reversed because of his distinguishing birthmark. So no, we cannot use a reversed portrait. Rkitko ^(talk) 01:24, 28 March 2013 (UTC)