Talk:Chitauri: Difference between revisions
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
(Created page with "== Infobox == Is it worth having the infobox image if it, a) doesn't depict the article's subject and, b) is longer than the article itself? ~~~~") |
No edit summary |
||
| (9 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== Infobox == | == Infobox == | ||
Is it worth having the infobox image if it, a) doesn't depict the article's subject and, b) is longer than the article itself? [[User:Jack|Jack]] [[User talk:Jack|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 20:09, 18 October 2024 (UTC) | Is it worth having the infobox image if it, a) doesn't depict the article's subject and, b) is longer than the article itself? [[User:Jack|Jack]] [[User talk:Jack|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 20:09, 18 October 2024 (UTC) | ||
: I've been using infobox images of elements being mentioned, with an explanatory caption, on a fair few articles (e.g. [[Wile E. Coyote]]), so I do personally think they're more helpful than ''not'' having them. As for the image's height, that's just because the panel it's from is vertical, although it probably ''could'' be cropped a bit shorter, since Rocket's not overly important to the image. [[User:Cookieboy 2005|Cookieboy 2005]] [[User talk:Cookieboy 2005|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 20:15, 18 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
:: Huh. I don't think I agree with the practice, but I'd be interested to see what other people think. It's only one step away from using a subtitled screencap from a TV episode. [[User:Jack|Jack]] [[User talk:Jack|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 20:20, 18 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
::: Yeah, I have to agree with Jack here. The deviation from common practice makes it confusing (for example at first glance here, I thought star lord was a Chitauri). [[User:Danochy|Danochy]] [[User talk:Danochy|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 21:08, 18 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::: Yeah, that's what I thought until I compared the image to the one in the Behind the Scenes section. [[User:Jack|Jack]] [[User talk:Jack|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 21:10, 18 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::: The caption's right there... [[User:Cookieboy 2005|Cookieboy 2005]] [[User talk:Cookieboy 2005|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 21:24, 18 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::: The image is so long that I didn't see it. [[User:Jack|Jack]] [[User talk:Jack|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 21:27, 18 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::: I've just cropped the image so hopefully that's less of an issue. I feel like illustrations like these would be on the page if there was no infobox, so putting them there with a caption feels like the best alternative. [[User:Cookieboy 2005|Cookieboy 2005]] [[User talk:Cookieboy 2005|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 21:38, 18 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
: There's definitely precedent for using this kind of image in {{tlx|first pic}}, but I don't know about the infobox. I'd put it as a thumbnail to the ''left'' on the page, in a case like this. (I'd definitely say you could use an image of the species' technology, writing, etc. in the infobox for lack of a direct depiction, but an image whose actual artwork doesn't depict anything adjacent to them feels like a stretch.) --[[User:Scrooge MacDuck|Scrooge MacDuck]] [[User talk:Scrooge MacDuck|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 21:46, 18 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
:: Yes. An infobox picture is meant to depict the subject of an article, while an in-line image depicts something described in the text itself. There's a distinct difference. [[User:Danochy|Danochy]] [[User talk:Danochy|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 00:30, 20 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
::: I dunno, I tried putting the image to the left, with the BTS image on the right, and it looked worse than it does now to me. [[User:Cookieboy 2005|Cookieboy 2005]] [[User talk:Cookieboy 2005|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 11:14, 20 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 11:14, 20 October 2024
Infobox[[edit source]]
Is it worth having the infobox image if it, a) doesn't depict the article's subject and, b) is longer than the article itself? Jack ☎ 20:09, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- I've been using infobox images of elements being mentioned, with an explanatory caption, on a fair few articles (e.g. Wile E. Coyote), so I do personally think they're more helpful than not having them. As for the image's height, that's just because the panel it's from is vertical, although it probably could be cropped a bit shorter, since Rocket's not overly important to the image. Cookieboy 2005 ☎ 20:15, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- The caption's right there... Cookieboy 2005 ☎ 21:24, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- I've just cropped the image so hopefully that's less of an issue. I feel like illustrations like these would be on the page if there was no infobox, so putting them there with a caption feels like the best alternative. Cookieboy 2005 ☎ 21:38, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- There's definitely precedent for using this kind of image in {{first pic}}, but I don't know about the infobox. I'd put it as a thumbnail to the left on the page, in a case like this. (I'd definitely say you could use an image of the species' technology, writing, etc. in the infobox for lack of a direct depiction, but an image whose actual artwork doesn't depict anything adjacent to them feels like a stretch.) --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 21:46, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- I dunno, I tried putting the image to the left, with the BTS image on the right, and it looked worse than it does now to me. Cookieboy 2005 ☎ 11:14, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
