Talk:Paul Signac

Support/Oppose

(11 Modern packed / 7 Old)

• Old. Support the older more dignified version...Modernist (talk) 13:02, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
• Modern per nomination rational. Larger images, less wasted space. The modern web is moving towards a higher emphasis on visual content and having tiny image surrounded by loads of gray space is only considered "dignified" because it's what old-school editors are used to. This is a matter of preference, not dignity or clarity. Packed images will not confuse readers as to where boundaries between images are.-- CFCF 🍌 (email) 13:06, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
• Old I must say I don't like the packed ones. Both can have their sizes varied. Johnbod (talk) 15:32, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
• Old. Support non-packed gallery images. The packed mode makes all the images appear to fuse together, with some images much larger than others. Coldcreation (talk) 18:54, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
• Modern It is just an opinion that the 'old' style looks better. Statements like too close together and ...works to be considered individually are aesthetic judgements and I disagree with them. Nyth63 18:59, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
• Old Support the older version. The idea of dignity might be expanded upon here: To crop the image of a painting is to misrepresent it in an important way (unless there is a need to isolate a detail, in which case the caption should explain that it's a detail). A packed gallery makes a new mural out of individual paintings, and that's not much better. The subject of Orchid is orchids, not notable photographs of orchids, so the images may be packed, or cropped to improve composition, or Photoshopped to eliminate background clutter. But Signac's paintings are the very reason he is notable. The jpgs should present the works accurately, as individual objects. It is just an opinion that the space required to do this is wasted space. Ewulp (talk) 02:08, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
• Modern Much more space efficient on smaller screens- when you look at the page on mobile the titles of the paintings are more difficult to pair with the work because of the extra whitespace. More and more of WP's users will be viewing this on mobile devices and I suspect that the new design is intended to account for this. I think aesthetic considerations should be secondary to usability on all devices. --Spasemunki (talk) 05:38, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Aesthetics do matter when looking at art by the way...Modernist (talk) 15:47, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• Modern Those examples below are really ugly. Compatibility comes first, seems like WP:IDONTLIKEIT from some people here! MQoS (talk) 12:29, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

This user, MQoS is a possible WP:SOCK. Coldcreation (talk) 12:52, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Whoah, this brings back memories of why I left. A few RfC comments and drama and accusations ahoy....!!! Why? MQoS (talk) 15:02, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• Modern. We are an encyclopedia, not an art gallery though will have articles that describe painters and artists and schools of art and by necessity images of those pieces of art should be present. But we should not be worried about aesthetics here, we're looking for maximum compatibility and usability with all browsers and all readers. There are plenty of other places in real life and on the Internet that if one needs to see the artwork in an aethestic manner that they can go to; WP's use of such images should be utilitarian, not artistic. --MASEM (t) 15:22, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Wow! Another enthusiast for the visual arts! Johnbod (talk) 16:09, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Well it looks like once again Masem we disagree!!!...Modernist (talk) 17:25, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Marginal preference on aesthetic grounds for modern (the idea that paintings should be surrounded by space to be appreciated is a recent one; historically, they were often packed as close as the frames would allow, and to most or all of the height of the wall); but it really doesn't much matter. It's far more important to deal with the disfiguring black lines along the side and bottom of some of the images, and with the WP:OVERLINKING. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:15, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes paintings were once packed together in certain contexts, but that really didn't last long and was abandoned everywhere, and for good reason. And even then they had frames - typically pretty wide ones. Occasional attempts to revive that hanging style are rarely liked. I agree about overlinking, but that is not an issue here. Johnbod (talk) 16:20, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

The paintings look better with the extra space; we are talking visual art here...Modernist (talk) 17:27, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• Modern - The images look far far better without all that crap around them!, As an aside when I add galleries even I use the "Modern" format - Just looks more neat & tidy imho. –Davey2010^Talk 00:28, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
• Modern - The old galleries were always an ugly scare-away, nice to see someone fixed it. Beforehand, there was mostly a composition. It looked like a catalog, and not of the arty kind. Now you can look at a Signac painting, get some details, and, even see its texture. That works for whoever is here for an impression. Also, if you are looking for something in particular, click on it (it will get bigger). trespassers william (talk) 13:27, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
• Old Per user ColdCreation: "Support non-packed gallery images. The packed mode makes all the images appear to fuse together, with some images much larger than others." Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 16:43, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
• Old. The space surrounding the images is not "wasted space" but add a dimension that adds tastefulness. Bus stop (talk) 04:17, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
• Modern. This comes down to personal taste at the end of the day. I see the borders of the old version as wasted space that gives the old gallery a decidedly dated look. ~ Rob^Talk 19:05, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
• Modern - I feel the practical and technical benefits must outweigh aesthetic preferences. These are encylopedia articles, not art galleries. For the record, I think the images look fine in either version. Lootbrewed (talk) 01:46, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
• Modern feels right. - Cwobeel (talk) 02:24, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose packed mode and support "old fashioned"??. First, I don't think we should be calling it modern, at least this is the first time I've seen in mentioned as such, and I do a fair amount with galleries on art pages. The problem with the packed mode is this: it places the images too close together and it's very difficult to differentiate. On this talk page is an example where I experimented with it and it didn't work well at all; in the end I didn't use it. There are other examples where I've experimented and in the end decided against it. I've looked at these images and much prefer the unpacked version because the space around the images is really necessary to separate them from one another. Another issue is that I have some vision issues and it's really difficult to focus on packed galleries, something I've been noticing recently. Packed galleries look swell in some cases, particularly if there's black space or white space around the image's subject, but generally I prefer not to see them for works of art and on artist bio pages. Adding: looking at these types of paintings, with vivid colors, smashed up against each other, is very difficult for the brain to process and differentiate one from another. It gives me a migraine. Victoria (tk) 00:49, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
• Old - Sorry, this hurts my eyes, and in my opinion, crowds the images too much. Closely-spaced art has, I think, some unfortunate connotations which I shan't reference here. Kafka Liz (talk) 00:12, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
• Modern - Summoned here by bot. The modern version is better for smaller screens, more space efficient. The borders on the old version aren't serving any purpose, rather than taking up space. The modern one is more practical and makes the most sense in my opinion. It doesn't really matter what it looks like aesthetically. Cheers, Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 17:23, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

The above (17:23, 10 September 2015) was posted after the close of the RfC. Bus stop (talk) 03:01, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

• It's very easy to make the images larger in the second gallery; it's a no brainer...Modernist (talk) 13:09, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, this results in more wasted space. When the margin stays the same and the size increases the gray space increases exponentially.-- CFCF 🍌 (email) 13:13, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

• Thats an erroneous opinion, the paintings that are depicted look better - plain and simple...Modernist (talk) 13:17, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

It is not an opinion, it includes more waste space. You can even measure it. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 13:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

• The problem with the new version is that the images are too close together. We're looking at discrete works as opposed to diptychs/triptychs/series. The framing on the old images allows the works to be considered individually, in the gallery format. Neither format, in my opinion, is ideal, but I am unable to offer an alternative and the old form is preferable when viewing art. I don't understand the idea of "wasted space". This is the internet, not printing. Perhaps there is a technical issue that I am misunderstanding. freshacconci talk to me 14:26, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

When I refer to wasted space I mean "screen space". I currently run a 5k monitor, but I still find that the images are surrounded by excessive white space. I disagree that only works that are part of series should be displayed in this manner. You are unlikely to discern any detail from the tiny thumbnails anyway. If you wish to view the images in full it can only be done by clicking and accessing the full version. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 14:41, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't matter much what the gallery looks like because it's only an index: for a proper view of the picture the viewer will click on the thumbnail to see it full size. The default gallery should be the most up-to-date one. Pelarmian (talk) 15:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Watching ordinary readers in training etc generally shows that few are aware of the click on image options. Johnbod (talk) 15:47, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I completely agree with Freshacconci the mode packed images are too close together in nearly every case...Modernist (talk) 15:35, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Packed mode makes horizontal rectangular paintings appear much larger than vertical paintings. See for example, Women at the Well. This painting measures 195 × 131 cm (76.8 × 51.6 in), yet it appears minuscule next to The Jetty at Cassis, Opus 198 and The Bonaventure Pine. In the older gallery mode image sizes are more homogenous. Horizontal works are not blown out of proportion. Coldcreation (talk) 19:05, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

By removing "per row 5", the images flow accross the entire screen regardless of screen resolution or screen size. See gallery below at various sizes, resolutions. Coldcreation (talk) 22:21, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Gallery with image size adjusted:

• 
  Road to Gennevilliers, 1883
• 
  Comblat le Chateau. Le Pré. 1886, Dallas Museum of Art
• 
  The Town Beach, Collioure, 1887, Metropolitan Museum of Art New York City
• 
  The Jetty at Cassis, Opus 198, 1889, Metropolitan Museum of Art New York City
• 
  Women at the Well, 1892, Musée d'Orsay, Paris
• 
  The Bonaventure Pine, 1893, is currently at the Museum of Fine Arts, Houston
• 
  The Port of Saint-Tropez, oil on canvas, 1901, The National Museum of Western Art, Tokyo, Japan
• 
  Grand Canal (Venice), 1905, Toledo Museum of Art, Toledo, Ohio
• 
  The Papal Palace, Avignon, oil on canvas, 1909, Musée d'Orsay, Paris^[3]
• 
  Antibes - Morning, 1914, National Museum, Warsaw

I like the 'new' style considerably better. I find it easier to see some detail in the slightly larger images and the eye scans across theme easily distinguishing individual images. The format however is rather irrelevant as they are only thumbnails and presumably, the viewer will click/select the image to enlarge it if they want a better view anyway. This whole argument is then rather pointless especially after trying assign human qualities like dignity to an inanimate object like a painting. Rather pretentious and silly in my opinion. Nyth63 18:59, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

More silly mumbo-jumbo about dignity. We are just talking about thumbnails here. How can cropping be an issue, when shrinking the image down to a scale that loses most of the detail, is not? That seems to me to be more of an indignity. How is adding a white matte around a tiny little image going to make it more dignified? We are not talking about making changes to the original master artworks. ANY electronic image of an artwork will fall short of the original, so looking for dignity in an minuscule index image is just plain ridiculous. On the whole, the HTML tag gallery is just some anonymous programmer's once-upon-time random word choice for a visual index, nothing at all like a real life art gallery. If you go to an art galley/art museum, you will see that typically it appears that much thought and effort goes into the presentation and arrangement of the works. In that context, I would agree that dignity may be a useful term. But certainly not in a reference work like an encyclopedia. Nyth63 03:21, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

The space makes it easier to see the images as individual images. I note that you indented your comment, which indicates that you understand the value of space. Even in a reference work like an encyclopedia, we use paragraph breaks and leading to improve readability. And as Modernist demonstrates above, the sizes of images in traditional galleries can be adjusted. Ewulp (talk) 04:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I understand a lot of things, but what I don't understand is why someone is so hung up on the aesthetics of a frigging index. It just a image-based linked list, not a work of art. The fact that all of the images in the index are same size should indicate that there is no consideration made as the the size or scale of the original work and that those characteristics are totally irrelevant for the purpose of the image gallery. Would this discussion even exist if the the HTML tag had been named something like ImageIndex rather than using the more artsy word gallery? The use of indenting in Wikipedia is only a crutch/kludge to aid in separating individually comments in a quasi-forum that was never designed for a thread-based type of discussions. Nyth63 12:43, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

There are spaced between the images in the packed version. I would be very surprised if anyone confuses images because of use of this format. As said I believe this entire discussion is about clinging on to something that has been around on account of being used to it. I don't understand why we are so adverse to change. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 12:27, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• Your assumption is totally wrong, plain and simple - the images look better with space around them...Modernist (talk) 12:31, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Modernist. It's interesting to note that those in favor of packed images know little about editing art related articles, while those in favor of the standard gallery arrangement are all experts in the field. Furthermore, it is not because something is "new" (or "modern") that it is improved or more appropriate. "Change" is not always positive or for the better. In this case, the standard ("old") gallery format is more appropriate, better and highly effective. Coldcreation (talk) 13:56, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

This is the exact type of attitude that scares people away from editing Wikipedia. I will have you know I do edit art articles extensively, and you can also see that I have uploaded a number of the images included in the above gallery. Your comments seem to suggest a degree of ownership of these articles. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 14:06, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Get over it and Stop making absurd and false accusations the plain truth is people disagree with your opinions and many of us like Freshacconci (talk · contribs), Johnbod (talk · contribs), Ewulp (talk · contribs), Coldcreation (talk · contribs) and me have essentially created many thousands of edits and done major work on most of the visual arts articles on Wikipedia for many years...Modernist (talk) 14:12, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Accusations of what exactly? -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 14:21, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• This nonsense of yours: This is the exact type of attitude that scares people away from editing Wikipedia...Modernist (talk) 14:26, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
• Comment: This RfC basically comes down to personal taste. None of the sides have provided viable logical arguments supporting their respective types of gallery. Why is one version termed the "dignified version"? Who judges the dignity of a gallery display? Simply preposterous. As for the argument this is the "way the modern web is moving", it is also absurd. This is an encyclopaedia; if we were to follow the way the web is moving we'd be writing articles in 140 characters and posting dick pics of celebrities. So overall I haven't read any significant arguments either way, hence my inability to either support or oppose this proposal. This is a personal dispute until proper arguments are presented. Regards, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 17:41, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

It is not a "personal dispute", but it is a matter of "personal taste", possibly with an element of "personal choice of device" - possibly many views would be different if the editor mainly used different hardware. It is not all "preposterous" to have strong views on such matters, but all should recognise that their views are subjective, and possibly hardware-dependent. Johnbod (talk) 15:10, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Mobile viewer

Modern

Old

Old 220px
Suggested by User:Coldcreation

Spasemunki made an excellent point above about how these show up in mobile browsers. I did a test and have uploaded 3 screenshots to commons that display the different examples shown above. (There are no other changes, and the examples are of this page as of today.)
I believe these results are conclusive in saying that the packed mode displays better with the modern gallery format. Also note that the resolution of the phone in question (an LG G4) is 2.5k, which is not representative of most phones. Using an ordinary lower resoltion phone the wasted space between image and caption might actually exceed the range of the screen, resulting in needing to scroll down to see the caption and image in the same screen.

P.S. I will do a similar test with a lower resolution phone as soon as I get time, and for full disclosure the browser being used is Firefox for android

-- CFCF 🍌 (email) 15:20, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Clearly the old looks better - aesthetics do matter when looking at art by the way...Modernist (talk) 15:44, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Clearly you are working from an invalid premise. Thumbnails are not art any more than a bibliographical entry is a book. . Nyth63 19:52, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Nyth—the thumbnails are not the original work of art. Nevertheless they serve an art educational purpose. Even the thumbnails familiarize the reader with the work of art. This too is art education. Knowing little more than the title of the article, the reader nevertheless derives an art educational experience by seeing the image. The reader familiarizes themselves with the sort of images associated with, in this case, Paul Signac. Bus stop (talk) 00:08, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but this is a webpage, not an art gallery. Personal taste isn't a good rationale for inconveniencing mobile users, who are rapidly becoming the largest fraction of the site. This is a classic WP:BIKESHED. My point is that 'I think this looks better' is totally subjective and can't ever be grounds for a consensus. Performance on different display devices is a better criteria for a decision. --Spasemunki (talk) 20:50, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

That's your opinion. These are images of works of art and it does matter how they appear. The visual arts editors who have weighed in have a completely different point of view than what you can see on your phone...Modernist (talk) 22:19, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

For works of art, the standard gallery is more versatile, readable and adaptable at varying resolution, scale; on a multitude of devices and on a wide array of screen sizes; in contrast with packed mode. The standard image gallery is favored by Wikipedia editors with extensive experience editing WikiProject Visual arts articles. Consensus has not been attained to change the standard gallery to packed mode. It is now time to archive this discussion and move on. Coldcreation (talk) 03:17, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

That feels like the entire opposite of what we should be doing. The discussion looks to favor the modern style mode on account of usability. The standard gallery is showing its age in both mobile and on large screens, this is what it looks like on my macbook today (firefox again). -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 21:34, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me? This discussion clearly prefers the standard gallery for viewing works of art; apparently you cannot seem to comprehend other points of view - by editors who have made thousands upon thousands of edits and inclusions to visual art articles. It's time to archive this, this nonsense is getting very old....Modernist (talk) 22:44, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

More likely it is the other way around. I also suggest you avoid WP:Personal attacks and stick to the issue at hand. More and more evidence is being piled on that the modern format is better, and this RfC has been running for only a few days. The standard procedure is to run an RfC through unless consensus is clear. We currently have 3 editors backing the modern version and 4 backing the old version. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 23:39, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

There is no "evidence" that the packed mode is better. It is neither more "modern" than the standard gallery, nor more versatile across various devises. And for the record, you've been reminded several times now that editors with extensive experience editing WikiProject Visual arts articles (i.e., Modernist, Johnbod, Ewulp, Freshacconci and myself) prefer the standard to the packed mode for the reasons mentioned above. Yet, you insist that your opinion is "better". Your insisting that the packed mode should replace the current gallery, despite the fact that consensus sways counter to your opinion, is borderline disruptive behavior. You've attempted to pack the gallery images together four times and have been reverted each time. This is disruptive editing at the very least. Your incessant accusations here at Talk are unfounded. Please stop edit warring. This discussion needs to be archived. Coldcreation (talk) 03:06, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I have not accused anyone of anything bar creating an exceedingly unwelcome environment to new editors. You are misinterpreting non-consensus to favor your viewpoint. Suggesting to close this RfC prematurely only undermines your opinion.

As for how the packed/modern mode is better see the images I've linked, and see Spasemunki's arguments above. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 08:44, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

CFCF: At 12:52, 6 August 2015, (following your edit war stint) you posted your opinion on this talk page, with the silly claim that the "old" gallery is a waste of space, hoping to gain consensus to change to the "modern" packed mode. To date, 11 August 2015, only two other users have shared your belief. Visibly, none of you have any experience with the visual arts content at Wikipedia. If you had, you would have seen that all (or practically all) art related articles use the standard gallery layout. There are reasons for this (see above). It is not because we are unaware of the packed mode. Nor is it because we resist change. It is because illustrations, drawings, photographs and paintings need to be seen as individual artworks, not all crowded, bunched, fused or packed together. This is one of the reasons why you find spaces between paintings hanging in museums and galleries, rather than all hung very close to one another to fill valuable space. Your failure or refusal to "get the point" is both disruptive and wasting time. Coldcreation (talk) 11:56, 11 August 2015 (UTC) |}

Unnecessary heat

I get the feeling things are getting a little to heated here, and would like to try and bring the discussion down a notch. I think we are all here for the same thing; to build an encyclopedia. Anyway I wanted to dispel one potential confusing factor here, and that is the statement that the traditional galleries are more versatile. That is not correct, and because packed/modern galleries do not include gray space they can be adapted to do things the other can't. I put this together to show off what can be done for the issues with standing images looking smaller:

What is interesting is that even here the packed mode adapts to the width of the page, so that the images are always as large as possible. (Unfortunately I realized these don't work too well on mobile, but this is just a proof of concept.) -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 23:20, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

That "Unfortunately I realized these don't work too well on mobile" is a rather serious problem, given that the main objection we're hearing here to the standard gallery seems to be that some people think it doesn't look as good on mobile. Although I have to say, in the screenshot you posted in the "Mobile viewer" section, the right-hand "old 220px" version is a close match of the left-hand "modern" version, and seems fine to me.

I have attempted, using three different computers and browsers, to reproduce the result seen in your screenshot near the top of this page, with no success. I can't recall if I've ever seen a standard gallery display that badly; such issues would seem to be rather rare.

Problems with packed galleries are not so rare. As an example: I saw by your edit history that you had done considerable work on Nils Dardel, so yesterday I took a look at the article. All was well until I scrolled down to the packed gallery, which displayed very badly (viewed on a desktop). The jpgs in the "1910s", "1930s", and "1940s" galleries are quite tiny, clustered together of course in packed-gallery fashion like a roll of postage stamps or theater tickets, and incongruously surrounded by vast waste areas of white. The "1920s" gallery was much larger than those above or below it. I found that adjusting the dimensions of my window produced unpredictable variations in the sizes of the various rows, some better and some worse, but the first impression was not good. Tonight I visited the article again and saw exactly the same problems with the "1910s", "1930s", and "1940s" galleries; rather than post a screen shot I would ask other editors to see for themselves. Ewulp (talk) 04:05, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

The example I have here above doesn't work badly in mobile, it just isn't as good as the other packed mode. It's still better than the traditional mode. Also it isn't difficult to fix, I just haven't had the time to create the template. The Dardel article is still a WIP because I found a resource with a number of very high resolution images, I will fix their sizes once I've uploaded those.

Quite clearly we are headed towards replacing the old mode with something else. It would be good if we could have a constructive discussion, instead of extolling how bad everything that isn't the mode we've used since 2001 is. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 10:08, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello? Quite clearly we are not moving in your direction; Just because you insist - on having your way - there are differing points of view...Modernist (talk) 10:47, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Currently there are more than twice as many favoring the modern mode as the old one, please don't insult others. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 12:28, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

In sum

While neither the standard gallery nor the packed mode are perfect, the standard format appear best poised to evolve toward a more suitable and versatile outcome. The packed mode, while preferred by certain users not directly involved in the visual arts, bares two seemingly insurmountable problems: (a) images too closely packed together, and (b) height adjustment problems for vertical images rendering these considerably smaller than horizontal counterparts. Pending a new evolved standard version (with characteristics shown above), the actual standard gallery should be maintained as the default gallery layout. Without a clear consensus on the topic of the Paul Signac gallery layout (about 50% either way), I motion that this discussion be archived for future discussion on the more general topic of gallery layouts at Wikipedia. Coldcreation (talk) 22:13, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Agree that the last version with the mode=nolines option is a good compromise (with minor fear that no one will be happy rather than everyone). You will set the widths and heights a little larger though right? Could you insert widths="190px" heights="150px" or something similar in the example below? Why don't you call for another vote? Nyth63 23:30, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I still need to test this on a wide variety of devices and resolutions. I've already started doing so, and a few problems have emerged. More on that soon. Coldcreation (talk) 23:46, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Nolines mode

I just found a the "nolines" mode, close to what is portrayed above, but I still have to test it on various devices. It would appear as a cross between the standard and packed modes. Image pixel sizes can be increases just as the standard and packed modes. (For vertical images there still appears some gray background, see Women at the Well):

Closure

This RfC is in favor of the modern mode. I was asked by Bus stop to partake in discussion–but I have presented my arguments repeatedly, and there has been amply time to weigh in. Being the most wordy and frequent debater does not move consensus in your favor. There should be no doubt which is the most supported position.-- CFCF 🍌 (email) 00:57, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi CFCF—I am sorry if I have been "wordy". I will try to be more succinct. You have not participated in this discussion in two weeks. I thought I made some points in that time. I would appreciate it if you would try to give your reasoned response to the points I've made. Please be aware that we don't simply count votes. Participation in discussion is an important part of resolving a dispute. We don't want to reach an incorrect outcome, do we? So, please try to engage in the dialogue transpiring above. Thank you. Bus stop (talk) 01:28, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I've already read your comments–I find them to be reiterations of the previous discussion. Too often are RfCs closed in favor of the less supported position because one side persevered longer, producing more rebuttals and more responses. As little as we count votes–neither do we count the volume or frequency of responses. My points are made, I can not parse any new arguments since my last posting.-- CFCF 🍌 (email) 01:35, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

CFCF—have I "persevered" or have you failed to engage in dialogue at this RfC in the past two weeks? Bus stop (talk) 01:55, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I deliberately chose not to respond for lack of new arguments. I have other commitments that make it impossible to engage here constantly–and responding to each comment with a rebuttal based upon the same points as previously does not strengthen your argument. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 11:03, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• This RFC is clearly divided; the opposition is essentially the visual arts project - editors who create these articles; and the entire label of modern versus old is total manipulated bullshit. This RFC is essentially mode packed versus non mode packed. Modern v old is nonsense perpetrated to denigrate the non mode packed versions. Enough nonsense...Modernist (talk) 02:20, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

You speak as if it is a 50/50 divide, but what I see is a small minority of very vocal editors who believe the old mode is better. Please drop it and admit that your side is the minority unsupported one. Also is it up to you to decide who is a member of the visual arts project? I've worked extensively–especially with the images on commons and consider myself a member, and I consider the old mode to be vastly inferior. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 10:33, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

This looks like no consensus - get an uninvolved administrator...Modernist (talk) 10:42, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

You are well aware that you are misinterpreting consensus here–but I'm afraid that may be what it takes. Having an admin close it will increase the chance of the RfC to set precedent for other VA-articles. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 11:03, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

CFCF—you refuse to engage in dialogue. This discussion is ongoing yet you have not posted, before today, in over two weeks. You appear to be unconcerned with this article. Your concern seems preternaturally focussed on imposing your will. You speak disparagingly of "old-school editors" but it is "old-school editors" who created, maintain, develop, and care about this article. You are declaring that a method of displaying images at this article is supported by "consensus" yet you are by and large not even participating in the discussion attempting to reveal consensus and resolve the divided opinion about this. Bus stop (talk) 11:07, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I have participated; I am participating; I did not respond to repeats of old arguments. Consensus is very clear. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 12:12, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

CFCF—you are resorting to disparagement again. This is different from engaging in discussion. I have not repeated "old arguments". You are being dismissive of the process. This is an WP:RfC. It calls for engagement in discussion. You are not benefitting the process by remaining aloof. Bus stop (talk) 12:36, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

That is your erroneous opinion...Modernist (talk) 23:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

No it is not, a large majority is in favor of the modern mode. More editors support the mode now than before and there are no new arguments here. If I may ask what new arguments do you believe have been brought forth that had not been mentioned two weeks ago? -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 23:50, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• Your so-called majority is a near total minority when it comes to editing articles about the visual arts. With 2 exceptions I just see newbies regarding visual art articles. Your opinion is just that - your opinion...Modernist (talk) 23:56, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't work that way. Consensus is determined by the weight of argument, not by edit-count. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 23:57, 2 September 2015 (UTC) 

I reiterate – What new arguments are being brought forth that could fell this overwhelming consensus towards using the modern mode? -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 23:58, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

The above discussions prove our case beyond a shadow of a doubt that the non mode-packed galleries work best. All you've got is an edit count and your opinion; sorry but your opinion is clearly wrong...Modernist (talk) 00:02, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Repeating that assertion is getting you nowhere. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 00:12, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

CFCF—you are trying to cut short the discussion about the pros and cons of various possibilities concerning image presentation. You are insisting that consensus is clear and that it favors your argument. But the discussion is not over. It has been going on. You have largely chosen not to participate in that discussion. Bus stop (talk) 01:23, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

• You have only an edit count on your side and your erroneous opinion...Modernist (talk) 00:15, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
• As I said this looks to me as no consensus with most of the heaviest visual arts contributors against. Each and every article is unique; and what is decided in one article is just that...Modernist (talk) 11:08, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• By the way - your term modern is one that you have applied erroneously above - the correct term is modepacked...Modernist (talk) 00:04, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

It is newer, it was introduced in version 23 (I think) of the MediaWiki software. It is adapted to modern browsers, I called it modern – it is a choice I made. No more erroneous than the choice of the developers to have the mode be invoked by adding "mode=packed" to the gallery as a parameter. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 00:12, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I prefer the real term mode-packed...Modernist (talk) 00:17, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Several of the "votes" in favor of packed mode either lack meaningful argument (e.g., "feels right"), express personal taste, or express no strong preference ("Marginal preference on aesthetic grounds for modern ... but it really doesn't much matter"). The substantive-seeming issue is compatibility, specifically the size of jpegs on cell phones. Yet an examination of the screenshots in the "Mobile viewer" section above shows no drastic reduction between the left and right views. Holding a ruler to my monitor I find The Papal Palace, Avignon measures 38mm across on the left (packed) and 37mm across on the right (standard 220px). This is trivial. For Antibes - Morning the numbers are 45mm (packed) and 37mm (standard, 220px). In other words, both images on the right are nearly identical in size to The Papal Palace, Avignon in packed mode on the left. As for captions, in all cases they are significantly closer to the jpgs above them than to the jpgs below, making identification easy, so utility is not really an issue there.

The deficiencies of packed galleries that have been most noted here are the fusing of images together into a single composite, and the very disfiguring smashing of vertical images between horizontal ones. These are not trivial issues. This is from Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Image_galleries: "The images in the gallery collectively must have encyclopedic value and add to the reader's understanding of the subject ... Just as we seek to ensure that the prose of an article is clear, precise and engaging, galleries should be similarly well-crafted." So the manner of presentation should not be a matter of indifference. An educational purpose is served when we make it plain that the images in a gallery represent individual works, and we should not assume that readers will intuit this when the images are butted against each other in a manner that suggests a polyptych or a comic strip.

The appearance of a thing may be powerfully affected by something placed close by it. Some space around a picture reduces visual interference. This is not a matter of personal taste; it is a matter of physiology. For entertaining demonstrations of this see Mach bands, Ebbinghaus illusion, and White's illusion. Ewulp (talk) 03:56, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Perhalps the discussion has moved on to another venue, but I was following this early, agast. Because we *can* pack images does nopt mean we *should*. I do not see how the new tempate moves us forward. Ceoil (talk) 20:00, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Ewulp – stretching your argument to physiology is ridiculous. What you are saying has no basis in science and is simply absurd. Please get me a single source that equates space between images to visual illusions–which is what your links refer to. Illusions apply just as much when space is increased, and effects such as the Checker shadow illusion depend on it. Nonetheless, they are completely irrelevant to the debate.
The support here vastly overshadows the opposition – and there are arguments of increased usability with the modern mode – while arguments for the old are based solely upon personal taste.-- CFCF 🍌 (email) 23:13, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

CFCF—color is affected by the color next to it. Juxtaposition affects color perception. A color is not seen alone; it is seen in relation to the color next to it. The space between images is thus serving a purpose in severing an image from the effects of an adjoining image. The "framing" lines are also serving a related purpose; they are creating a visual "break" between adjoining images. Bus stop (talk) 23:47, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes it does, but the packed mode includes framing lines. Color constancy will not be improved by a tiny increase of gray area–and rather than add to the perception of the image it retracts because the space left to display the image is much smaller. When weighing the benefit of displaying a larger image in the same space against a tiny image with a large gray border I don't think it's hard to realize which is preferable. There is a reason why we have the MediaViewer for closeups. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 23:55, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

The Media Viewer is available for use no matter how thumbnails are displayed on this page therefore I think the availability of the Media Viewer is irrelevant to this discussion. You say that "the packed mode includes framing lines". I believe the framing lines as used in the "packed mode" coincide with the edge of the image; they are not spaced a distance away from the image. In the "non-packed-mode" framing lines hover in a space between images. The added space, plus the framing lines, create a discontinuity that results in a favorable view of thumbnails as distinct, separate images. Bus stop (talk) 00:14, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Discussion concerning Lootbrewed's comment

Moved here from the voting section because that is the wrong place to have it:

This was a response to the comment under the vote section above:

The "old gallery" is entirely superior. These are not "aesthetic preferences" except in the sense that art images (paintings) are always framed. Almost without exception an image is given a frame. The four lines of a frame echo the rectangularity of the typical art image. They restate the two horizontals and the two verticals that represent the outline of the picture. There is no jargon thrown in here. This is plain English that anyone should understand. The "modern gallery" represents throwing away that emphasis which is is given to paintings by a frame. Bus stop (talk) 02:27, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

You're humorous. How's that for plain English? Lootbrewed (talk) 03:20, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

You are counting votes. Consensus is not merely a matter of counting votes. I think that quality of argument should count for something too. Bus stop (talk) 03:36, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

For the record, the "vote" count started long before I got here for the first time. I simply updated the tally for the convenience of participants. Lootbrewed (talk) 21:08, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

On subjective matters such as which aesthetic works best in an article, the "substance" of an argument can consist of little more than personal opinion. There isn't a WP:OLDGALLERY to cite here. Counting votes is appropriate in this situation. ~ Rob^Talk 04:18, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

BU Rob13—there is a discussion to be had. Some are avoiding the discussion by claiming "lingo" is being used by those supporting tried and true principles of image presentation. Some are avoiding the discussion by claiming that in matters of taste, there can be no disputes. But there are certainly reasons why the proposed method of presentation fails. It is in our interests to present famous works of art in ways that enhance their view-ability. Throughout history and at the present time, imagery is enhanced by framing. It is not so much the ornateness of the frame or its innate attractiveness that matters to the image within the frame. It is the basic lines of the frame—2 horizontals and 2 verticals—that set off the image against its surroundings. I am trying to explain the obvious: frames serve a purpose. I am aware that an article is not an "art gallery". Nevertheless we have an interest in presenting images in the most favorable light. Removing the frame does not help in that endeavor. It only weakens the encyclopedia's coverage of art subjects. Bus stop (talk) 04:44, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree on to points: a. that a discussion is worthwhile, and since no colliding worldviews are concerned there is a chance of mutual agreement. b. that frames have a purpose. The problem is with the particular frames used in (default parameters-) "standard" view. They show, between each two pictures, many parallel lines grouped together with bright expanses and writings in between. There are so many of them, the eye glides and dosn't know where to stop. They are giving the overall feel of a tight net where some colored areas are the ones separating the avenues, not the other way round. Then on the right (leftovers) and left (sidebar) of the webpage there the very big empty areas the make one feel the miniature in the middle just aren't that important. However, this issue might be one where size matters the most, as the Nolines experiments by User:Coldcreation show. Having about four big images that take up almost all of the width, with slightly above minimum spacing, just draws enough attention (from the details up to the whole? like in a museum?).

There is still place for frames, but look at those natively aroung The Town Beach, Collioure, or Road to Gennevilliers, or the wiki-frames around the ones parallel to the text. They just about make their part without help. Something thin and possibly dark like this can be added to the gallery instead of the cardboards.

PS one: Lots of more modern arts hang without frames. Maybe they are intimidated, but I don't know if it helps them.

PS two: don't you feel the user who is contributing "let's close this know" or the like is more of an avoider?

trespassers william (talk) 12:40, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

This is simply the iVote section. If you all want to continue a lengthy debate, take it to the Discussion section below. That's what's it's for. Lootbrewed (talk) 20:50, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

It is true that "Lots of more modern arts hang without frames." But the Signac paintings are 100 years old. And even contemporary art in a Wikipedia article benefits from frames in their presentation to the viewer. Virtually any image benefits from lines echoing the delineation of the (usually rectangular) image. This is somewhat similar to the way scare quotes call attention to a word or phrase. The scare quotes are setting off that word or phrase for special consideration. We have a vested interest in trying to get the reader to take special notice of each image of artwork that we include in an article. If we are going to argue that Wikipedia is not an art gallery or that these thumbnails are hardly impressive in their dimensions and scarceness of detail, then why bother including images of famous paintings at all? I think we all agree that the images are all educational in an art historical kind of way. Therefore it seems like a poor move to reduce their usefulness to the reader by removing the framing lines and the emphasis those lines impart to the image. Bus stop (talk) 00:12, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Lootbrewed—there is no need to place value judgements on image presentation possibilities as you do here. "Modern" sounds better than "Old". This causes a value-laden influence that we should be avoiding. I think "Non-mode-packed" and "Mode-packed" are preferable terms for us to be using because they fail to carry implications concerning favorability. Bus stop (talk) 21:09, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

We can't change the terminology in the middle of the discussion, and it remains that the packed mode was introduced much later–hence it is newer. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 23:06, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

• You are one opinion here, you made up a BS term; and now it is changed, STOP CHANGING OTHER EDITORS INPUT!!!...Modernist (talk) 23:24, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

• Getting sick and tired of you're edit warring...Modernist (talk) 23:41, 5 September 2015 (UTC)