This file was quickly created by
Peter coxhead for a discussion at
Talk:Crown group#Pan-group = Scion?, and I liked it enough to use it for that article. Now, if we want to bring it up to POTD level, there are a few things we might consider:
Based on the aforementioned discussion, Peter made sure that the basal node is outside of both T1 and S1. If my understanding is correct, then by contrast it should be inside T and that area should be expanded so as to clearly include the black circle. —
SebastianHelm 12:21, 4 January — continues after insertion below
Similarly, the two white crown nodes should be clearly inside the crown groups C1 and C2. —
SebastianHelm 12:21, 4 January — continues after insertion below
The borders of T and S1 and the label ‘S1’ are very close together. It might be better to widen T1 and S1 at that side a bit so that there is more space.
We could take a closer look at the picture under the view of
MOS:COLOR. Especially the colors of T1 vs C1 and C2 may be problematic.
Personally, I would prefer C1 to have a slightly different hue from C2, so that it becomes clear without reading the caption that the two are not connected. But an argument can be made for keeping them the same.
It might be a bit more esthetically pleasing if C1 and C2 were marked with round areas so as to harmonize with the other group marks. —
SebastianHelm 12:21, 4 January — continues after insertion below
Sorry, I don't understand your point here. Conceptually, they're all groups (as opposed to nodes and lines), so they best be represented by the same shape. For highlighting them as “actual”, we have other things we can vary, such as fill color or border thickness. ◅
Sebastian20:15, 4 January 2022 (UTC)reply
Another difference between the crown groups and the other groups is that the former contain no lines of descent. For consistency, I would draw some in the crown groups, as well. (Alternatively, we might also consider leaving them out altogether, but then we would have to completely rethink the diagram between the basal node and the crown nodes.) —
SebastianHelm 12:21, 4 January — continues after insertion below
There is no reason why the crown nodes are displayed at the same height; this can confuse readers into thinking that that needs to be so. Since in our diagram there is no S2, I would therefore move down the crown node for C2. —
SebastianHelm 12:21, 4 January — continues after insertion below
The implicit vertical axis is time. Since all the terminal nodes in the crown groups must be extant, they must be at the same height.
Peter coxhead (
talk)
15:58, 4 January 2022 (UTC), but the two triangles representing the clades don't have to be the same size, and I agree it would be better if they weren't. —
SebastianHelm 12:21, 4 January — continues after insertion belowreply
Hi, I don't want to keep uploading different versions which may not be used, so I've put a revised version here (now removed). The colours could usefully be checked by someone into accessibility issues. Comments?
Peter coxhead (
talk) 17:10, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
But I hear you about the numbering. I see no reason to change the file name each time by appending a number, so I suggest to rename this file to “Crown n Stem Groups.svg” so that we have one permanent file name. Those uses that are version specific, such as your post at
Talk:Crown group#Pan-group = Scion? would then have to be changed to links to specific versions of this file.
You write “which may not be used”, but I see no reason for that concern. So far, all of your changes have been useful improvements. Possibly you're feeling uncomfortable about each change getting published in the article(s) right away. For me, that's normal; it's just the way a wiki works. But if that's a concern for you then we could just use a sandbox picture instead. ◅
Sebastian06:43, 9 January 2022 (UTC)reply
@
SebastianHelm: you made another valid point, namely that it would be better if the two crown groups didn't start at the same point, since this is not a requirement. I'll fix that before doing anything else.
Peter coxhead (
talk)
13:32, 9 January 2022 (UTC)reply
Cool, thanks! I Now requested renaming – of the file on commons, to be exact; I don't know how that will affect the file here on the English Wikipedia.
To the filemover: For the request, I provided the rationale “uncontroversial renames”. While this doesn't quite make the bar of the examples given, the original uploader agrees. Since I promise to take care of any remaining issues and also change the global uses of version 01 of this file to the new number, it should be worth your time. ◅
Sebastian18:30, 9 January 2022 (UTC)reply
This file was quickly created by
Peter coxhead for a discussion at
Talk:Crown group#Pan-group = Scion?, and I liked it enough to use it for that article. Now, if we want to bring it up to POTD level, there are a few things we might consider:
Based on the aforementioned discussion, Peter made sure that the basal node is outside of both T1 and S1. If my understanding is correct, then by contrast it should be inside T and that area should be expanded so as to clearly include the black circle. —
SebastianHelm 12:21, 4 January — continues after insertion below
Similarly, the two white crown nodes should be clearly inside the crown groups C1 and C2. —
SebastianHelm 12:21, 4 January — continues after insertion below
The borders of T and S1 and the label ‘S1’ are very close together. It might be better to widen T1 and S1 at that side a bit so that there is more space.
We could take a closer look at the picture under the view of
MOS:COLOR. Especially the colors of T1 vs C1 and C2 may be problematic.
Personally, I would prefer C1 to have a slightly different hue from C2, so that it becomes clear without reading the caption that the two are not connected. But an argument can be made for keeping them the same.
It might be a bit more esthetically pleasing if C1 and C2 were marked with round areas so as to harmonize with the other group marks. —
SebastianHelm 12:21, 4 January — continues after insertion below
Sorry, I don't understand your point here. Conceptually, they're all groups (as opposed to nodes and lines), so they best be represented by the same shape. For highlighting them as “actual”, we have other things we can vary, such as fill color or border thickness. ◅
Sebastian20:15, 4 January 2022 (UTC)reply
Another difference between the crown groups and the other groups is that the former contain no lines of descent. For consistency, I would draw some in the crown groups, as well. (Alternatively, we might also consider leaving them out altogether, but then we would have to completely rethink the diagram between the basal node and the crown nodes.) —
SebastianHelm 12:21, 4 January — continues after insertion below
There is no reason why the crown nodes are displayed at the same height; this can confuse readers into thinking that that needs to be so. Since in our diagram there is no S2, I would therefore move down the crown node for C2. —
SebastianHelm 12:21, 4 January — continues after insertion below
The implicit vertical axis is time. Since all the terminal nodes in the crown groups must be extant, they must be at the same height.
Peter coxhead (
talk)
15:58, 4 January 2022 (UTC), but the two triangles representing the clades don't have to be the same size, and I agree it would be better if they weren't. —
SebastianHelm 12:21, 4 January — continues after insertion belowreply
Hi, I don't want to keep uploading different versions which may not be used, so I've put a revised version here (now removed). The colours could usefully be checked by someone into accessibility issues. Comments?
Peter coxhead (
talk) 17:10, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
But I hear you about the numbering. I see no reason to change the file name each time by appending a number, so I suggest to rename this file to “Crown n Stem Groups.svg” so that we have one permanent file name. Those uses that are version specific, such as your post at
Talk:Crown group#Pan-group = Scion? would then have to be changed to links to specific versions of this file.
You write “which may not be used”, but I see no reason for that concern. So far, all of your changes have been useful improvements. Possibly you're feeling uncomfortable about each change getting published in the article(s) right away. For me, that's normal; it's just the way a wiki works. But if that's a concern for you then we could just use a sandbox picture instead. ◅
Sebastian06:43, 9 January 2022 (UTC)reply
@
SebastianHelm: you made another valid point, namely that it would be better if the two crown groups didn't start at the same point, since this is not a requirement. I'll fix that before doing anything else.
Peter coxhead (
talk)
13:32, 9 January 2022 (UTC)reply
Cool, thanks! I Now requested renaming – of the file on commons, to be exact; I don't know how that will affect the file here on the English Wikipedia.
To the filemover: For the request, I provided the rationale “uncontroversial renames”. While this doesn't quite make the bar of the examples given, the original uploader agrees. Since I promise to take care of any remaining issues and also change the global uses of version 01 of this file to the new number, it should be worth your time. ◅
Sebastian18:30, 9 January 2022 (UTC)reply