Talk:Euromaidan/Archive 12015/May
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Euromaidan. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Image removal
@Crisco 1492: Is there an other than aesthetic reason for this image removal [1]? I think it likely that the visual issues are simply associated with your browser. When I look at the before/after revisions the clip fits neatly under the history box and creates no extra white space. If there is an editorial reason for removal would you mind explaining it and if it is aesthetic only would you please replace it? Cheers. JbhTalk 11:32, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
- It has little to do with the browser, and much more to do with the screen resolution. What resolution are you using? At 1366*768, it causes severe white space, which is something we should be avoiding. See Help:Whitespace. If the video I removed is important to understanding the content of the text, and not purely decorative (I doubt that, as watching the video it comes across as a disjointed series of clips without a unifying theme aside from the events it depicts), it can be worked in elsewhere. With a better caption of course... "Euromaidan Kyiv Ukraine 2014" conveys no information about why the video is important in an encyclopedic sense. — Crisco 1492 (talk)
- Hmmm... I have no real attachment to the video, however it has been in the article through a lot of discussions here. When I look at the before/after using 1600x900, 1280x800 and making my browser window different sizes I simply do not see the white space issue you are talking about. For instance when I take the window size down to about 1024x768 and 800x600 there is more white space on the current revision - it starts at note 4 while the old version starts at note 7.
Considering how heated this article has been in the past I would rather see content removal based on something other than, in my opinion (I see more while space in your version on small screens), unnecessary aesthetic grounds. I see no reason to revert your edit but I would be grateful if you would consider that possibly graphic presentation is not the best, or even a good, reason to remove content. JbhTalk 14:23, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
- Ensuring that articles remain in accordance with the manual of style and image use policy ("The purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter, [...] The relevant aspect of the image should be clear and central.") is always an appropriate reason to remove content. Also, the issue showed up not in the footnotes, but in the references—there are nearly four hundred references in this article, meaning that's a heck of a lot of whitespace. Screenshot here, downsampled for size considerations (though it's still uploading; might take a few minutes) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:15, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
- Your screenshot file is corrupted. I believe you see what you see, I am simply saying that I do not see the problem, there is no white space in the References section with or without the file, the number of references makes no difference unless you have a rendering issue or I am completely missing something. The image end before the references section.
I made a simple request that you reconsider the removal of material in an article which has been subject to much discussion. If you do not have a better reason for removing the content than it looks bad on your screen please put it back. Please consider this an objection to your bold removal. The primary issue I see is the 'History of the Ukraine' navbox needs to be at the top of the article rather than the bottom. Adjusting that may take care of the white space issue you are seeing without removing content. That would seem to take care of your objection and mine in one swoop if you would care to give it a try since I simply do not see the same screen rendering you do. Cheers. JbhTalk 17:58, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
- Your screenshot file is corrupted. I believe you see what you see, I am simply saying that I do not see the problem, there is no white space in the References section with or without the file, the number of references makes no difference unless you have a rendering issue or I am completely missing something. The image end before the references section.
- Hmmm... I have no real attachment to the video, however it has been in the article through a lot of discussions here. When I look at the before/after using 1600x900, 1280x800 and making my browser window different sizes I simply do not see the white space issue you are talking about. For instance when I take the window size down to about 1024x768 and 800x600 there is more white space on the current revision - it starts at note 4 while the old version starts at note 7.
