Standardization of Tabber Image Formatting

[DarkDragonMedeus]

This was brought to my attention when it comes to Tabber images, but this is an example of image comparisons.

Among the three formatting options, I am in the opinion that the second tabber format should be the standard because it offers the best balance between readability and formatting consistency. And this can also be updated in the Common Editing Mistakes page.

• The usual version places everything on a single line, which makes it feel cramped and harder to read, especially when multiple tabs are present.
• The rare version introduces excessive spacing, which creates unnecessary visual gaps and makes the layout look uneven and overpadded.
• The second version, by contrast, cleanly separates the tab label from the image without adding excess space. This results in a more organized, readable, and visually consistent format across profiles.

I believe the balance is important, and that the second version is both more user-friendly and more in line with the wiki’s preference for clear, standardized formatting. As a result, I believe the second tabber format should be adopted as the standard due to its superior clarity, structure, and overall presentation compared to the other two options.

Any other thoughts among staff?

 

[MSahla]

Sorry for commenting even though i don't have permission.

But do people actually use the “usual version” one you mentioned? Because i thought the correct one is always this one:

<tabber>
|-|Ultra Instinct=
[[FileBZ_MUI_Goku_Portrait.png|right|260px]]

|-|blablabla=
[[File:blabla.png|right|260px]]
</tabber>

Which is the one you proposed (the "second version”) Like i've been doing it whenever i'm making a profile.

I didn't know people used the “usual version" and i didn't even know that's always been “usual”, probably because I'd never seen it. I always look at other people's profiles for inspiration, and sometimes I even copy and paste from theirs. And i always find people using that tabber format so i just follow them.

I'm sorry but, i'm just surprised at this. Like i thought that's always been the standard. Don't mind me.

 

[MonkeyOfLife]

Sorry for commenting even though i don't have permission.

But do people actually use the “usual version” one you mentioned? Because i thought the correct one is always this one:

Which is the one you proposed (the "second version”) Like i've been doing it whenever i'm making a profile.

I didn't know people used the “usual version" and i didn't even know that's always been “usual”, probably because I'd never seen it. I always look at other people's profiles for inspiration, and sometimes I even copy and paste from theirs. And i always find people using that tabber format so i just follow them.

I'm sorry but, i'm just surprised at this. Like i thought that's always been the standard. Don't mind me.

As an image helper, I believe I see like 85% or even more being all in one line. I mean... that is how even the usual standalone image is formatted "[[File:Goku_DBZSS1(1).png|right|330px]]" and shown in the format instruction page, all of them being in one line and not separated—so it makes sense that the "usual version" is to associate the tabbers with being connected and in line with the image file/format.

Just pressing the random page button will basically only show that "usual version" (1, 2, 3, 4, 5)

For me personally, however, I don't really see the necessity or benefits of using the second version as the standard. Making them spaced out in another line for me increases the chances of making it harder to grasp what the image is associated with.

Although I still see both the usual and the second version as being valid.

 

[SomebodyData]

As an image helper, I believe I see like 85% or even more being all in one line. I mean... that is how even the usual standalone image is formatted "[[File:Goku_DBZSS1(1).png|right|330px]]" and shown in the format instruction page, all of them being in one line and not separated—so it makes sense that the "usual version" is to associate the tabbers with being connected and in line with the image file/format.

Just pressing the random page button will basically only show that "usual version" (1, 2, 3, 4, 5)

For me personally, however, I don't really see the necessity or benefits of using the second version as the standard. Making them spaced out in another line for me increases the chances of making it harder to grasp what the image is associated with.

Although I still see both the usual and the second version as being valid.

Yeah, I'd agree that both are valid for the wiki's standards. The difference is minimal anyways.

 

[TWILIGHT-OP]

I’ve been using the second version for a long time now, so yes, I’m in favour of the second version.

 

[YmTheSuper]

I definitely prefer the second version as it looks the best, especially in pages where there is a large number of images. Although I don't think we should be strict regarding its enforcement as the other 2 work fine and the usual version is the most commonly used, we can just consider the second version as a preferable way of using tabbers with images and recommend it in our Standard Format pages.

 

[Ztesrxgdfjcvgkbh]

Hello, I received permission from DarkDragonMedeus to participate here. While I agree with his proposals, particularly the second version, which provides a more consistent format across profiles. I don’t think the “Rare” version should be used at all, as the excessive spacing makes the layout look cluttered and is unnecessary.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Actually it was this thread I was asked to ping @Just a Random Butler @FinePoint @Random-Helper323 @Kaydee1648

 

[FinePoint]

I definitely prefer the second version as it looks the best, especially in pages where there is a large number of images. Although I don't think we should be strict regarding its enforcement as the other 2 work fine and the usual version is the most commonly used, we can just consider the second version as a preferable way of using tabbers with images and recommend it in our Standard Format pages.

I mostly agree with this, though I would also be fine with disallowing the rare version entirely.

 

[Dark-Carioca]

The less empty space the better, is what I've usually been taught from working on several wikis... but all three are valid as long as there isn't an excessive amount of empty space imho

 

[Kaydee1648]

All in for the second version as well.

 

[Just a Random Butler]

Sorry for the delay. I intended to give my input on this a few days ago, but I got caught up with other things.

I generally avoid using inline tab content (the first option). I also don't usually correct it directly to avoid edit wars, since I believe most users are able to resolve any issues themselves if issues arise. Even so, it's not something I would recommend as a standard practice. The same goes for the third option as well, which seems like overkill to me.

Personally, I prefer the second format and stick to it consistently. It follows the same structure commonly used in MediaWiki wikitext, where a lot of block-level elements such as bullet lists, headings written in wikitext syntax (not HTML tags), and other structured content are placed on separate lines. These elements I mentioned, along with other MediaWiki stuff not listed here, generally depend on line breaks to display correctly. Placing them on the same line as the tab label can lead to errors or other unexpected quirks.

Knowing all that, I also apply the same approach to images and tabber content just to be safe, since keeping structure and content separated makes it more readable, makes it easier to maintain (without causing accidental errors), and makes it more consistent to the other practices we already do.

This is my rationale behind my approach.

 

[Antvasima]

I think that both the first and second versions are fine, and are not a sufficiently big deal to spend time revising on a large scale, whereas the third version seems like a bit of overkill.