More actions
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? 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)