Talk:Venice: Difference between revisions
imported>SilverSummoner mNo edit summary |
imported>D. Cello No edit summary |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
:I agree with Wagnike in this matter. Gallery is just nice. Sometimes incorporating image on the article will make it looks messy. In some wiki, gallery is used to display artwork pictures though ^^ - [[User:SilverSummoner|<span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS"><font color="skyblue">'''Silver'''</font><font color="dodgerblue">'''Summoner'''</font></span>]][[User talk:SilverSummoner|<sup><font color="royalblue">''TaLk''</font></sup>]] 01:20, December 12, 2009 (UTC) | :I agree with Wagnike in this matter. Gallery is just nice. Sometimes incorporating image on the article will make it looks messy. In some wiki, gallery is used to display artwork pictures though ^^ - [[User:SilverSummoner|<span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS"><font color="skyblue">'''Silver'''</font><font color="dodgerblue">'''Summoner'''</font></span>]][[User talk:SilverSummoner|<sup><font color="royalblue">''TaLk''</font></sup>]] 01:20, December 12, 2009 (UTC) | ||
99,4% (and up) of the articles of this wiki doesn't use the gallery. It should be used as a resort for too many pictures, not a standard for every page. We have great looking pages with the pictures integrated, we've should not and will not change them. -- [[User:D. Cello|D. Cello]] 02:47, December 12, 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 04:47, 12 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)
- I agree with Wagnike in this matter. Gallery is just nice. Sometimes incorporating image on the article will make it looks messy. In some wiki, gallery is used to display artwork pictures though ^^ - SilverSummonerTaLk 01:20, December 12, 2009 (UTC)
99,4% (and up) of the articles of this wiki doesn't use the gallery. It should be used as a resort for too many pictures, not a standard for every page. We have great looking pages with the pictures integrated, we've should not and will not change them. -- D. Cello 02:47, December 12, 2009 (UTC)