Talk:Paul Signac

message: i ndont no about paul signac and this information isnt helping!!!!!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.195.235.12 (talk) 10:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I recently uploaded a new very high-resolution work (right) by Paul Signac at :File:Les_Andelys,_by_Paul_Signac,_from_C2RMF_cropped.jpg. Feel free to use if useful. Dcoetzee 21:06, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  New high res work 

message: Should this article use the new or old gallery format?
Arguments for the old is that it gives uniform spacing and allows each work to be seen individually with space around it
Argument for the new is that it uses less space overall allowing for larger images in the same space
Other issues: mobile usability; corruption when viewing non-standard galleries.
-- CFCF 🍌 (email) 13:01, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Aesthetics do matter when looking at art by the way...Modernist (talk) 15:47, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: This user, MQoS is a possible WP:SOCK. Coldcreation (talk) 12:52, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: Wow! Another enthusiast for the visual arts! Johnbod (talk) 16:09, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it looks like once again Masem we disagree!!!...Modernist (talk) 17:25, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

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

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

text: 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)

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

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

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

text: Get over it and Stop making absurd and false accusations the plain truth is people disagree with your opinions and many of us like , , ,  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)
replies: text: Accusations of what exactly? -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 14:21, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: RfC concerning use of galleries

message: ;(11 Modern packed / 7 Old)
*Old. Support the older more dignified version...Modernist (talk) 13:02, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Aesthetics do matter when looking at art by the way...Modernist (talk) 15:47, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: This user, MQoS is a possible WP:SOCK. Coldcreation (talk) 12:52, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: Wow! Another enthusiast for the visual arts! Johnbod (talk) 16:09, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it looks like once again Masem we disagree!!!...Modernist (talk) 17:25, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

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

text: Get over it and Stop making absurd and false accusations the plain truth is people disagree with your opinions and many of us like , , ,  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)
replies: text: Accusations of what exactly? -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 14:21, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Discussion

message: ;Space increased
I keep trying to show you that the packed mode is more versatile, and all you do is go back to dignity and breath, without regards to the fact that most modern art sites do now display on anything that looks so out of date or legacy. Wikipedia shouldn't be so resistant to change, and it is luddite when we don't even want to discuss benefits of newer/other forms. Here is another example of what can be done if you skip the stupid gray squares. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 06:31, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Also of note is that the packed gallery is already in widespread use on articles on the visual arts in for example French: :fr:Musée des beaux-arts de Houston. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 06:54, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

text: First could you please discuss the benefits of the standard gallery. Ewulp (talk) 07:24, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Some hints: Allows more space between images, allows jpgs in a single row to display at varied heights. But thanks for the good-faith effort to acknowledge that there is another side to this discussion. My opinion on this matter is close to what Freshacconci said—I am not in love with the look of the standard gallery, but it usually serves much better in my experience. Probably all of us here are well aware that the packed gallery is already in widespread use on articles on the visual arts; I've had to revert them back to standard mode in a few cases when the appearance of the packed gallery was especially dire. The version with wider spaces that you have added here is certainly a step in the right direction. If it is possible to tweak it to preserve all the benefits of the standard gallery, there would be no grounds that I know of for insisting on the standard version. Supporters of the "old" version whom you've rather uncharitably characterized as "old-school editors" who are "averse to change" and clinging to old technology may in fact be waiting for refinements in new technology before we scuttle the current galleries. Ewulp (talk) 09:25, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I'll try to see if I can throw together a template that does this. Getting jpegs to display att different heights in the same row might be a bit difficult without getting it to look weird. (I absolutely aknowledge that there is a different side of the debate, but it would seem at least some editors are rejecting the newer version on principle, some of which have been very aggressive. One actually went around doing some very questionable reverts of my work over at commons: e.g. [:File:Paul_Signac_Palais_des_Papes_Avignon.jpg].) -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 09:45, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  See the Discussion page. Coldcreation (talk) 18:06, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: And this one too: File talk:Paul Signac Femmes au puits 1892.jpg. Coldcreation (talk) 19:09, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: According to your rational for reverting you are the one who is changing images. I have not edited these whatsoever. Please do not assume bad faith. Your own image corrections degrade the image quality and should be placed under a different file name. If you wish I will provide you with TIFF or PNG files, but your changes are your own. Your comments regarding the specific thumbnail you keep linking amount to WP:OR. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 19:17, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

text: For the sake of discussion I'm also throwing in the below mode with an overlay that includes a link to Image help as well as instructing readers to click on the images. (This one would be by far the easiest to implement.)-- CFCF 🍌 (email) 09:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitrary break - other possibilities 

message: For the record, here is the proposition of Coldcreation (rather than those above). This is a modification of the standard gallery. Three modifications were made: (1) Grey outlines and borders surrounding the images are removed. (2) Captions are closer to respective images. (3) Horizontal rows are moved slightly closer together. This, in my opinion, would be the ideal format (or layout) for the Signac page, and possibly for other image galleries at Wikipedia. This is a screenshot for the purpose of visualization and discussion, so clicking on individual images will not enlarge them.
This proposition has the advantages of both the standard gallery and compact mode, while eliminating any negative aspects. It is a modification of the standard gallery layout, rather than a modification of packed mode. Coldcreation (talk) 15:23, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modification of standard gallery 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: In sum

message: 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):
====Gallery====
File:Paul Signac Road to Gennevilliers.jpg|Road to Gennevilliers, 1883
File:Comblat-le-Chateau. Le Pré.jpg|Comblat le Chateau. Le Pré. 1886, Dallas Museum of Art
File:Paul Signac Collioure.jpg|The Town Beach, Collioure, 1887, Metropolitan Museum of Art New York City
File:Paul Signac - The Jetty at Cassis, Opus 198.JPG|The Jetty at Cassis, Opus 198, 1889, Metropolitan Museum of Art New York City
File:Paul Signac Femmes au puits 1892.jpg|Women at the Well, 1892, Musée d'Orsay, Paris
File:Paul Signac, Grand Canal (Venise).jpg|Grand Canal (Venice), 1905, Toledo Museum of Art, Toledo, Ohio
File:Paul Signac - Notre-Dame-de-la-Garde (La Bonne Mere) (1905-06, Marseilles, Metropolitan Museum of Art New York Collection).jpg|Notre-Dame-de-la-Garde (La Bonne-Mère) Marseilles, 1905-06, Metropolitan Museum of Art
File:Signac, Antibes, le soir ( Musée d'art moderne et contemporain de Strasbourg ).jpg|Antibes le soir, 1914, Musée d'art moderne et contemporain de Strasbourg
File:Signac Antibes - Morning.jpg|Antibes - Morning, 1914, National Museum, Warsaw
File:Golfe Juan by Paul Signac (1863-1935) - IMG 7171.JPG|Golfe-Juan, Worcester Art Museum
====Gallery====
File:Paul Signac Road to Gennevilliers.jpg|Road to Gennevilliers, 1883
File:Comblat-le-Chateau. Le Pré.jpg|Comblat le Chateau. Le Pré. 1886, Dallas Museum of Art
File:Paul Signac Collioure.jpg|The Town Beach, Collioure, 1887, Metropolitan Museum of Art New York City
File:Paul Signac - The Jetty at Cassis, Opus 198.JPG|The Jetty at Cassis, Opus 198, 1889, Metropolitan Museum of Art New York City
File:Paul Signac Femmes au puits 1892.jpg|Women at the Well, 1892, Musée d'Orsay, Paris
File:Paul Signac, Grand Canal (Venise).jpg|Grand Canal (Venice), 1905, Toledo Museum of Art, Toledo, Ohio
File:Paul Signac - Notre-Dame-de-la-Garde (La Bonne Mere) (1905-06, Marseilles, Metropolitan Museum of Art New York Collection).jpg|Notre-Dame-de-la-Garde (La Bonne-Mère) Marseilles, 1905-06, Metropolitan Museum of Art
File:Signac, Antibes, le soir ( Musée d'art moderne et contemporain de Strasbourg ).jpg|Antibes le soir, 1914, Musée d'art moderne et contemporain de Strasbourg
File:Signac Antibes - Morning.jpg|Antibes - Morning, 1914, National Museum, Warsaw
File:Golfe Juan by Paul Signac (1863-1935) - IMG 7171.JPG|Golfe-Juan, Worcester Art Museum
====Standard gallery====
This is the gallery currently used in the main article (placed here for comparison)
File:Paul Signac Road to Gennevilliers.jpg|Road to Gennevilliers, 1883, Musée d'Orsay, Paris
File:Comblat-le-Chateau. Le Pré.jpg|Comblat le Chateau. Le Pré. 1886, Dallas Museum of Art
File:Paul Signac - Cassis, Cap Lombard, Opus 196 - Google Art Project.jpg|Cassis, Cap Lombard, Opus 196, 1889, Gemeentemuseum Den Haag
File:Golfe Juan by Paul Signac (1863-1935) - IMG 7171.JPG|Golfe-Juan, ca. 1896, Worcester Art Museum
File:Paul Signac, Grand Canal (Venise).jpg|Grand Canal (Venice), 1905, Toledo Museum of Art, Toledo, Ohio
File:Paul Signac - Notre-Dame-de-la-Garde (La Bonne Mere) (1905-06, Marseilles, Metropolitan Museum of Art New York Collection).jpg|Notre-Dame-de-la-Garde (La Bonne-Mère) Marseilles, 1905-06, Metropolitan Museum of Art
File:Paul Signac - The Port of Rotterdam - Google Art Project.jpg|The Port of Rotterdam, 1907, Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen
File:Paul Signac, 1909, The Pine Tree at Saint Tropez, oil on canvas, 72 x 92 cm, Pushkin Museum, Moscow.jpg|The Pine Tree at Saint Tropez, 1909,  Pushkin Museum, Moscow
File:Paul Signac - Antibes, die Türme.jpeg|Antibes, 1911, Albertina, Vienna
File:Signac, Antibes, le soir ( Musée d'art moderne et contemporain de Strasbourg ).jpg|Antibes le soir, 1914, Musée d'art moderne et contemporain de Strasbourg
Issues with the nolines mode include misaligned captions, which result from the images being aligned on the top rather than on the bottom. This is unfortunate as it gives a rather messy appearance to the gallery. The standard (traditional, default) gallery does not suffer from this artifact. The irregular spacing is bothersome in the nolines mode, and there is also still a residual gray area surrounding vertical images. When pixel size is increased the space between images remains the same (rather than increasing proportionately), resulting in a compact image gallery (one of the problems of packed mode).
In sum: the standard gallery appears best suited for the Paul Signac article. The current default gallery, with gallery widths="190px" heights="150px" has less problems than the compact mode and the nolines mode. With the current images, this layout reduces the amount of gray area surrounding images to a minimum, images are large enough to see details, captions are aligned. Images are sufficiently separated to be seen as individual works of art. The standard gallery is quite versatile on all screens tested, regardless of size or resolution. The standard gallery is quite versatile on a wide variety of devices tested (iPads, notebooks/laptops, Mac, PC, desktops, mobile phones, e.g., Samsung, iPhone, of varying dimensions). The current gallery should therefor be maintained. I motion to close the debate as it's been active since 12:52, 6 August 2015 with no clear consensus (or viable reasons) for change. Coldcreation (talk) 12:11, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It's time to end this RFC...Modernist (talk) 15:01, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Nolines mode

message: This is the gallery currently used in the main article (placed here for comparison)
File:Paul Signac Road to Gennevilliers.jpg|Road to Gennevilliers, 1883, Musée d'Orsay, Paris
File:Comblat-le-Chateau. Le Pré.jpg|Comblat le Chateau. Le Pré. 1886, Dallas Museum of Art
File:Paul Signac - Cassis, Cap Lombard, Opus 196 - Google Art Project.jpg|Cassis, Cap Lombard, Opus 196, 1889, Gemeentemuseum Den Haag
File:Golfe Juan by Paul Signac (1863-1935) - IMG 7171.JPG|Golfe-Juan, ca. 1896, Worcester Art Museum
File:Paul Signac, Grand Canal (Venise).jpg|Grand Canal (Venice), 1905, Toledo Museum of Art, Toledo, Ohio
File:Paul Signac - Notre-Dame-de-la-Garde (La Bonne Mere) (1905-06, Marseilles, Metropolitan Museum of Art New York Collection).jpg|Notre-Dame-de-la-Garde (La Bonne-Mère) Marseilles, 1905-06, Metropolitan Museum of Art
File:Paul Signac - The Port of Rotterdam - Google Art Project.jpg|The Port of Rotterdam, 1907, Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen
File:Paul Signac, 1909, The Pine Tree at Saint Tropez, oil on canvas, 72 x 92 cm, Pushkin Museum, Moscow.jpg|The Pine Tree at Saint Tropez, 1909,  Pushkin Museum, Moscow
File:Paul Signac - Antibes, die Türme.jpeg|Antibes, 1911, Albertina, Vienna
File:Signac, Antibes, le soir ( Musée d'art moderne et contemporain de Strasbourg ).jpg|Antibes le soir, 1914, Musée d'art moderne et contemporain de Strasbourg
Issues with the nolines mode include misaligned captions, which result from the images being aligned on the top rather than on the bottom. This is unfortunate as it gives a rather messy appearance to the gallery. The standard (traditional, default) gallery does not suffer from this artifact. The irregular spacing is bothersome in the nolines mode, and there is also still a residual gray area surrounding vertical images. When pixel size is increased the space between images remains the same (rather than increasing proportionately), resulting in a compact image gallery (one of the problems of packed mode).
In sum: the standard gallery appears best suited for the Paul Signac article. The current default gallery, with gallery widths="190px" heights="150px" has less problems than the compact mode and the nolines mode. With the current images, this layout reduces the amount of gray area surrounding images to a minimum, images are large enough to see details, captions are aligned. Images are sufficiently separated to be seen as individual works of art. The standard gallery is quite versatile on all screens tested, regardless of size or resolution. The standard gallery is quite versatile on a wide variety of devices tested (iPads, notebooks/laptops, Mac, PC, desktops, mobile phones, e.g., Samsung, iPhone, of varying dimensions). The current gallery should therefor be maintained. I motion to close the debate as it's been active since 12:52, 6 August 2015 with no clear consensus (or viable reasons) for change. Coldcreation (talk) 12:11, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It's time to end this RFC...Modernist (talk) 15:01, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Standard gallery

message: I have replaced the :File:Paul Signac, 1893, The Bonaventure Pine, oil on canvas, 65.7 x 81 cm, Museum of Fine Arts, Houston.jpg image with :File:Paul Signac, 1909, The Pine Tree at Saint Tropez, oil on canvas, 72 x 92 cm, Pushkin Museum, Moscow.jpg. The latter is more representative of Signac's work. In addition, the colors and contrast of the Houston version are excessively pushed, rendering the image of poor quality, even if the megabyte or pixel count is higher than the Pushkin image. Essentially, quality is not solely dependent on image size, but on the accuracy of colors, contrast, hue, etc. with respect to the original work. Coldcreation (talk) 15:03, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Gallery images

message: Suggested to remove nested gallery per WP:NOTGALLERY etc. We have collection of images on Commons if editors wish to view them, there is no reason to further clutter the page with media when it is already peppered throughout with examples of the subject's works. Can add to Gallery already present on Commons(!) and link directly with  or , the latter of which is already present in article. None of the images have alt-text either. If keeping it, at least decrease the size (they are quite large here) as done with 1750–75 in Western fashion - which is generally accepted to be good example of gallery. Please include alt-text (not captions) describing the media files. -- dsprc [talk] 05:27, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: There has been enough discussion about this topic and my suggestion would be to drop the matter for several months. Johnuniq (talk) 06:29, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I was not party to previous discussion and was instructed by  to "seek consensus". This topic is not formatting, but if gallery should be included at all given rationale presented above in this section. -- dsprc [talk] 06:35, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: "Seek consensus" was a bit of a joke; a glance at the discussion above should have discouraged any idea that the involved editors don't want a gallery in this article. A few images of an artist's work in an article about an artist are not clutter. You are encouraged to add any needed alt-text. Ewulp (talk) 06:55, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: This is ridiculous–of course there should be a gallery–WP:NOTGALLERY even says so! The only reason we have to decrease the size is bandwidth, and that really isn't a very good reason. As for alt-texts WP:JUSTFIXIT. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 09:24, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

text: Yes keep it. Possibly a bit large, but fine by WP:NOTGALLERY. Johnbod (talk) 14:47, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gallery redux 

message: Paul Signac-Antibes le soir.jpg|1
Signac, Antibes, le soir ( Musée d'art moderne et contemporain de Strasbourg ).jpg|2
Signac, Antibes, le soir ( Musée d'art moderne et contemporain de Strasbourg ).JPG|3
Which one of these three reproductions is "the best"? As a thumbnail, n°2 is the most pleasant to look at, with its pastel colours. In full screen mode, n°3 has the highest resolution and the most texture. N°1 has not been taken by a professional, but by an experienced amateur and shows best how people see the painting in a museum, with the artificial lightning. Each version has its merits. But where is the real Signac? --Edelseider (talk) 15:37, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  The trouble with the reproduction of paintings, exemplified