The sidebar on this page is way oversized. It is almost double the length of the text contained in the article and adds nothing to the conversation. Why do we have it? -- sulfur (talk) 00:32, March 26, 2015 (UTC)

It's the right size once you factor in the Amazon ad IN THE CONTENT SPACE. Standardization probably, and since the rail drags the bottom of the page down anyway, does it really matter? - Archduk3 01:26, March 26, 2015 (UTC)

When viewing it in mobile, 2/3 of the page is "sidebar" before you get to the short article. In both cases, this is without ads. -- sulfur (talk) 01:29, March 26, 2015 (UTC)

I didn't think there was much of a difference in mobile between sidebar images and standard thumbnails. How were the images arranged before? - Archduk3 01:32, March 26, 2015 (UTC)

Edit the page, use the "mobile" preview. That gives a decent enough example of what it looks like there (hint: crap :) ) -- sulfur (talk) 01:47, March 26, 2015 (UTC)

I actually prefer the sidebar to how image galleries are handled in mobile. Neither is optional, though. - Archduk3 02:33, March 26, 2015 (UTC)
It's par for the course with an article that has a sidebar. I have experienced this on Wikipedia. Sidebars are manageable; long articles aren't. Someday, this site will have to address how long an article should be before it becomes unmanageable on a non-desktop screen.Lakenheath72 (talk) 03:35, March 26, 2015 (UTC)