This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments or questions on this topic should be made in a new Senate Hall page rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record. —spookywillowwtalk 00:21, 28 July 2025 (UTC)
Forums > Senate Hall archive > SH:Photos for systems should be location on map
Hi, I think the photos for systems in the infobox for systems should be photos of where system on a map.
This would be a better photo then just including a photo of the planet from space again, which seems to be what some system pages are doing. Photos of the planet from space can just go on the planet page.
(This was originally just a vote but as spookywillow pointed out this should probably be a discussion first.) RocketLaunchJr (talk) 11:46, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
This is the photo uses for the "Ghorman's system" page. This is what i'm recommend standardising the photos to
This is the photo used for the "Lothal system" page
Discuss
- Have there been any problems caused by a lack of consistency? Because if not, then rather than adding another rule, I'd recommend just keeping this on a case by case basis, discussing things on the talk page, or (if needed) having a CT to decide a particular image (see Forum:CT:SM-33 infobox image and Forum:CT:Fennec Shand infobox image for recent examples). - Brandon Rhea(talk)(he/him/his) 13:59, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
- Gonna just repeat what I said on the vote page: I oppose this on the principle that infobox images, wherever possible, should show the actual subject of the article. Showing Lothal in space does show what the Lothal system actually looks like, whereas showing Lothal on a map is just an abstract notation that is only good for relaying to us relative locational information. Imperators II(Talk) 14:34, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
- I suppose it could be a system where the 1st image is the system itself and the 2nd is the location of the system RocketLaunchJr (talk) 15:04, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
- I think, to Imp's point, it makes more sense that where there is an image of what something (a main body like a star, planet, etc) in the system looks like, we go with that. In those cases, a map image could still be used in the article body, which I think is probably better from a page content and presentation standpoint than putting something in the infobox that doesn't show much out of context and is something only the most hardcore fans tend to pay attention to. If there isn't an image of something in the system, then sure use the map image in the infobox, but that should be for lack of an alternative. - Brandon Rhea(talk)(he/him/his) 17:23, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
- I suppose it could be a system where the 1st image is the system itself and the 2nd is the location of the system RocketLaunchJr (talk) 15:04, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
- While not exactly what is proposed here, I think it could be useful to have an infobox parameter for a picture of where the location sits within the wider map of the galaxy, similar to what Wikipedia does. Stake black msg 21:27, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
- I really like that idea. - Brandon Rhea(talk)(he/him/his) 22:04, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
- Is there any reason infobox galleries could not be implemented here? - JMAS
Hey, it's me! 23:00, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
- That would be a good compromise, yes. Imperators II(Talk) 07:08, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
- I think that infobox galleries for system articles is a good idea; there is no real downside for allowing system articles to have infobox galleries. ThrawnChiss7 Assembly Cupola 16:39, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
