Talk:Venice: Difference between revisions
imported>Wagnike2 No edit summary |
imported>D. Cello No edit summary |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
:* I'm actually a fan of the Gallery look as opposed to trying to incorporate the images into the article, because unless you figure out a way to used fixed positioning to add the image, then on other computer/browser, it will create a different looking format. On the other hand, galleries are simplistic, and gives the user the option to decide whether they want to see the images. This is just my two cents though, feel free to go with whatever you'd like. - [[User:Wagnike2|Wagnike2]] 19:02, December 11, 2009 (UTC) | :* I'm actually a fan of the Gallery look as opposed to trying to incorporate the images into the article, because unless you figure out a way to used fixed positioning to add the image, then on other computer/browser, it will create a different looking format. On the other hand, galleries are simplistic, and gives the user the option to decide whether they want to see the images. This is just my two cents though, feel free to go with whatever you'd like. - [[User:Wagnike2|Wagnike2]] 19:02, December 11, 2009 (UTC) | ||
With excess of images, sure. But when we have much text and few images, the articles gets long and simplsitic, with all the iamges at bottom. Comparing, Altaïr and Ezio articles with images incorporated are better than Borgia's and Venice's with galleries. It makes the article more diversified and less boring, I believe. Anyway, the majority of the wiki has images incorporated, so leaing those articles with gallery would creat a discrepance on the manual of style we're trying to create. I think the gallery should only be used when you have few info text and many pictures... -- [[User:D. Cello|D. Cello]] 19:08, December 11, 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 21:08, 11 December 2009
Guys, try to incorporate the images into the article instead of creating "Galeries". -- D. Cello 16:03, December 11, 2009 (UTC)
- I'm actually a fan of the Gallery look as opposed to trying to incorporate the images into the article, because unless you figure out a way to used fixed positioning to add the image, then on other computer/browser, it will create a different looking format. On the other hand, galleries are simplistic, and gives the user the option to decide whether they want to see the images. This is just my two cents though, feel free to go with whatever you'd like. - Wagnike2 19:02, December 11, 2009 (UTC)
With excess of images, sure. But when we have much text and few images, the articles gets long and simplsitic, with all the iamges at bottom. Comparing, Altaïr and Ezio articles with images incorporated are better than Borgia's and Venice's with galleries. It makes the article more diversified and less boring, I believe. Anyway, the majority of the wiki has images incorporated, so leaing those articles with gallery would creat a discrepance on the manual of style we're trying to create. I think the gallery should only be used when you have few info text and many pictures... -- D. Cello 19:08, December 11, 2009 (UTC)