User:Mayalld/medcab

Mediation Cabal - Outcome

As many regulars will be aware, the ongoing disputes (on this page and others connected to the Commonwealth Royal Family) surounding image placement have been the subject of a Mediation Cabal request.

I regret that the process has not, to date, resulted in an outcome that both parties feel able to unambiguously endorse.

By any binary pass/fail judgement, we have failed.

However, the journey that we have travelled has not been without achievements.

Both parties to the mediation have worked within a fairly draconian set of rules that I imposed at the start (with one or two exceptions, but we are none of us perfect) to thrash out the issues, and hone down the areas of disagreement considerably. Given that the days prior to the mediation looked more like the start of all-out warfare than any attempt to reach agreement, it has taken a massive leap of faith all round for the parties to get this far, and they are both to be commended for their commitment to the process.

I would express hope here that they both take on board how much more they were able to achieve through discourse than through battles, and endeavour to continue their future interactions in the same vein, even without having a referee to remind them.

The fact that both have taken steps to remove content from their user space that could be considered as unpleasant towards the other, and have offered apologies to each other is, in my view, evidence that they both wish to contribute constructively to Wikipedia, and that ultimately they will find a way of accomodating each other.

The remaining issue

Whilst there are several areas that G2 and PoC continue to have different views on, there remains but a single area where we have not achieved some form of accomodation, the question of left aligned images overlapping into the next section.

It is clear to me that, at the root of the differences here, is the fact that G2 and PoC each use display resolutions that are outside the range of resolutions used by most editors and readers. This has the effect of making it difficult for each to visualise why the other has problems with their prefered layout.

G2 sees images spanning sections as a minor thing, because it merely displaces the next section header to the right a little, but on a lower resolution screen, this displacement may be about a third of the screen.

PoC sees a bit of white space as a minor thing, but on higher resolution screens, it could result in more white space than text.

We have looked at Policies and Guidelines, which are rather vague on who may be right. G2 rightly points out that WP:PIC depracates introducing white space as a solution to image stack, but PoC equally correctly points out that it does so in a context that implies that if image stack exists, it is something that should be done if there is no other solution available.

I have made suggestions which may well have the effect of making the point moot, by increasing the space used by text without introducing white space. None of this is guaranteed to work, but it may reduce the number of cases where there is an issue.

In the circumstances, I have taken the principles and guidelines that the parties were unable to agree upon, modified them slightly to take account of subsequent discussions, and reproduced them below.

Principles

Left aligned images should not be used immediately at the start of a section.
Left and right aligned images directly opposite each other tend to distract the reader and should be avoided (staggered left/right images that overlap are OK).
Image stacking that overlaps into the following section on any brower (not just the browser used by the editor) is to be avoided at all costs.
The gallery feature is available where there are many images that should be included.
White space is unwelcome, and we should avoid it if possible (but not at the expense of allowing an image stack to invade the next section).

Guidelines

In these guidelines, the likelihood of an event should be taken by reference to a 1024x768 screen resolution.

Any decorative images should be culled.
Where there is scope to do so, text should be expanded to increase the scope to add images.
Where there is scope to do so, additional paragraph breaks can be inserted to both expand the text size without introducing white space, and bring forward the first opportunity for a left-aligned image. This measure should not involve the introduction of arbitrary paragraph breaks.
Unless there is a risk that an infobox will encroach in the right column, the first image should be placed at the head of the section, right aligned.
The next image (or first image if the infobox encroaches) should be placed at the start of the second paragraph in a section, left aligned.
Subsequent images should be placed alternately left and right (infobox permitting). If an infobox is likely to encroach into a section, we should only add left aligned images every other paragraph until the text will have passed the foot of the infobox.
Where this is still likely to cause image stacking into the next section, images should be prioritised, and the lower priority images placed in a gallery at the foot of the section.
Other than cases where the infobox is likely to go right through a section, sections where there is a risk of image stack may be closed with {{clear}} to ensure that even on odd broswers we don't get image stack.
Where an infobox is likely to go right through a section, and we are using only left-aligned images, we should use {{clearleft}} rather than {{clear}}.
Wikipedia is a collaborative project, which relies of editors improving each others work. As such, it is always open to editors to attempt to improve the work of others. However, such changes should not have the effect of increasing white space or causing images to span sections.
Where the two parties are unable to agree on the layout of a particular section, they should both disengage, and invite other editors to decide.
There may be cases where all parties agree that, in a particular instance, image overlap is not a problem. Where this is the case, WP:IAR says that we should go with consensus!

Where now?

Mediation exists to try and bring two parties to a mutual agreement. It does not seek to (and is not able to) impose a solution.

If the parties wish, they can take this further along the dispute resolution process. I would urge them to consider whether they wish to spend time bogged down in process, or if they would rather get on with improving Wikipedia.

As such, I would suggest;

Others review the proposed guidelines, and work with the parties to see if there are in fact ways in which we can bring them together.
Both accept that there is a shortage of guidance on the issue in WP:MOS, and engage at WT:MOS to seek consensus to expand the guidelines.

At this point, I will be closing the MEDCAB, as I don't believe that we can go further with just the three of us. Thank you to both G2 and PoC for putting up with me as mediator, and I wish you all the very best of luck in reaching an amicable solution here.

If I can help further, please shout up. I will, however be unavailable from Wednesday until October 12th. Sorry, but I'm getting married, and the future Mrs Mayall says "no internet on Honeymoon"