File talk:Crown n Stem Groups.svg

Further improving this picture

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
Agreed. T is a clade and so includes the MRCA and all its descendants. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:58, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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
Agreed; same reason. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:58, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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
C1 and C2 are the actual clades (see next point), whereas the other coloured areas just enclose relevant nodes. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:58, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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. ◅ Sebastian 20:15, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, can round when the internal lines of descent are shown. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:05, 5 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
Agreed, but see next point. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:58, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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 below[reply]
Yes, their beginning is what I meant. I agree that of course they need to end at the same height. ◅ Sebastian 20:15, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise, the crown nodes don't need to be depicted with the same width. — SebastianHelm 12:21, 4 January — continues after insertion below
Agreed. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:58, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

◅ Sebastian 12:21, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One filename instead of numbering

Peter coxhead had left me a message on my talk page, which I noticed just now. Since I prefer to keep conversations together, I'm reposting it here below: ◅ Sebastian 06:43, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)

This is a great improvement! I think we should use it for our article Crown group as well as for the articles currently still using version 01 on the English Wikipedia and globally.

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. ◅ Sebastian 06:43, 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]

@SebastianHelm: ok, I've uploaded a revised version to File:Crown n Stem Groups 02.svg. I will leave it to you to deal with the file renaming, which I agree with. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:43, 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. ◅ Sebastian 18:30, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SebastianHelm: Criterion 1 (original uploader request) was what you wanted, so I've renamed the file under that one. --bjh21 (talk) 19:54, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, bjh21, I'll do the rest in the next few days. I'll also move this discussion page to the new name.

Just one question: What do you think, would it be worthwhile to merge the history of all three files that build up on each other? File:Stemgroups.jpg → File:Crown n Stem Groups 01.svg → this one? ◅ Sebastian 20:40, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SebastianHelm: I would say that the histories shouldn't be merged. File:Stemgroups.jpg is a JPEG file, so can't be merged into a name ending .svg. For File:Crown n Stem Groups 01.svg, I think the fact that it has a different author and significantly different design (no text in the picture) means that it should be kept separate. --bjh21 (talk) 20:52, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good, thanks. That also means less work for me. ◅ Sebastian 21:04, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. One thing didn't work as I thought; per Wikipedia:Help_desk#Transclude_specific_version_of_a_file I had to replace the image in the talk page with a link. (I also searched for global use of ‘File:Crown n Stem Groups 02.svg’ through this page, but didn't find any, which isn't surprising given that that file was only created a short time ago. Somehow I thought I had seen some global use of that file before the move, but I am probably misremembering.) ◅ Sebastian 04:53, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]