Forum:CT:Images in scroll boxes

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Images in scroll boxes

This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus Track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record.
The result of the debate was oppose proposal to forbid the use of images in scroll boxes when they are not immediately visible. jSarek (talk) 02:13, March 14, 2013 (UTC)

Edit: After further discussion in the IRC, I've narrowed this CT down to the actual issue that I was objecting to, and I'm sorry for not making it clearer. My proposal is that we outlaw the use of images in scroll boxes when they are not immediately visible. Images such as the ones on the Executor and the Hoth asteroid field are fine; this proposal would prevent images that are placed lower down in scroll boxes so that they are only visible when one scrolls down, as well as the use of more than one image. This would entail adding something like the following to the Appearances, Sources, and Notes and References sections of the Layout Guide:

"Images should not be inserted into scroll boxes if they are not at the top of the scroll box and therefore immediately visible to the reader, and only one image is permitted." Maybe someone else can come up with a more eloquent way to put it. Cade Calrayn GalacticRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit 19:43, February 27, 2013 (UTC)

Voting

Support

  1. As nominator. My 20-minute search through status articles using the random button on the main page has not turned up any that have images there, and I believe it's only right that we make this unofficial policy official. Cade Calrayn GalacticRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit 16:22, February 27, 2013 (UTC)
  2. Per Winterz. However...Fe Nite (talk) 01:44, February 28, 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. You know, I really don't have an issue with images in Appearances if they're done tastefully and not overused. I've employed this myself a few times when I thought an image really deserved to be in the article but didn't otherwise have room to fit it. (Executor and Hoth asteroid field) This has actually ended up looking better now that we've standardized the size of our scroll boxes to be 400px in height. I do emphasize that this is something that should be done in rare cases, however, and not be overused, and I do agree that images don't need to be in Sources and Notes and references. I have yet to find a need for that. It perhaps also deserves to be noted that this proposal doesn't cover instances in which an image is used in a short BTS section and overlaps into the Appearances (and sometimes Sources) section, which we have always tolerated. I think it would be a mistake to potentially restrict that sort of usage. I would agree to a policy that barred image use in Sources and Notes and references, but I do think there is occasional value to using them in Appearances. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 16:49, February 27, 2013 (UTC)
  2. Per Tope, I don't have an issue with this, as long as it is done in a way that looks good (as Tope's examples show it can be). I don't see a need to restrict this, as it could prevent someone using an image in a useful way. grunny@wookieepedia:~$ 17:00, February 27, 2013 (UTC)
  3. I'm opposing only because, sometimes, we have very short articles that can't otherwise support many images, but wherein having that extra image can add a great deal to the reader's understanding. So, I agree that such images should be avoided if possible, but I don't think it's always possible. ~SavageBOB sig 17:35, February 27, 2013 (UTC)
  4. I don't see any reason to explicitly ban this. 1358 (Talk) 18:03, February 27, 2013 (UTC)
  5. Absolutely agreed. Corellian PremierJedi symbolThe Force will be with you always 18:54, February 27, 2013 (UTC)
  6. Actually, I do prefer when their LEGO physical appearances stay hidden in scroll boxes, it's good for my sanity's sake. Winterz (talk) 21:26, February 27, 2013 (UTC)
  7. Rokkur Shen (talk) 02:32, February 28, 2013 (UTC)
  8. Sorry Cade, I still don't see an issue with it. JangFett (Talk) 03:34, February 28, 2013 (UTC)
  9. Per Tope. I think images in scroll boxes can be very tasteful and can break up the monotony.—Cal JediInfinite Empire (Personal Comm Channel) 16:20, February 28, 2013 (UTC)
  10. Yeah, I don't really think this is a problem. Commander Code-8 G'day, mate 08:16, March 1, 2013 (UTC)
  11. Exiled Jedi Oldrepublic crest (Greetings) 15:32, March 3, 2013 (UTC)
  12. Per above. CC7567 (talk) 15:34, March 3, 2013 (UTC)
  13. 501st dogma(talk) 23:40, March 3, 2013 (UTC)
  14. JMAS Jolly Trooper Hey, it's me! 23:44, March 3, 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Care to elaborate why? Stake black msg 16:29, February 27, 2013 (UTC)

  • Sorry, moved my reasoning up to the actual proposal. Cade Calrayn GalacticRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit 16:34, February 27, 2013 (UTC)

Wait a second. Are we arguing whether images should be in scrollboxes period, or whether they should only be at the top of a scrollbox? I read Cade's nomination as the latter; but Tope's and some other's objections seem as the former. Fe Nite (talk) 22:42, March 3, 2013 (UTC)

  • I am so confused. Someone help me. When I voted I thought I understood but now I don't. Fe Nite (talk) 22:45, March 3, 2013 (UTC)
    • It's kind of derailed at the moment, which is why once this one is finished I will likely re-propose the CT with the correct proposal from the start. Cade Calrayn GalacticRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit 22:45, March 3, 2013 (UTC)
      • Alright. I think I still support what you meant to say the first time :P --Fe Nite (talk) 22:47, March 3, 2013 (UTC)