Talk:Canton of Bern/Archive 01

message: These images have been removed from the article and may be re-added once they usefully enhance the content. Sandstein 18:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your assistance. I can live with this selection and arrangement of the images. The Grand Council image should be of equal width as the one next to it, I suppose, though. Sandstein 20:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point.  I fixed that. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 21:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Queued images

message: Sorry, Benjiwolf, but we do need some layout consistency here. Please look at our featured content, like Mahatma Gandhi. These articles don't have 400px-sized images at the top. Rather, they have a small number of images that actually fit with the content and that are uniform in layout appearance, such as sharing the same width. Let's try and discuss this here, shall we? Sandstein 11:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I now see your comment above - certainly the Jungfrau is a nice picture, but not in billboard size, please. This is just not Wikipedia's style. We are building an entire encyclopedia here, which requires some consistency. Sandstein 11:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images again 

message: i reduced the jungfrau pic size to what it was previous to my editing, i have added photos into the gallery of bernese style buildings and some representative landscapes...i added a pic of lake biel next to the geography section talking of it, one of emme region next to geography section discussing this, and 2 oberland photos next to oberland geography...when someone is telling me about geography of an area i want some photos of the actual geography of the area...even the most brilliant writer just cant at all convey geography, unless the reader has some sense already of what to imagine for the pictures in their head...i could read a book about the bernese alps...yet without some photos i would just imagine them as the mountains where i grew up...("a picture is worth a thousand words")...i wanted some more photos of the mittelland yet i went thru several districts and all municipalities of seftigen, trachselwald, signau, konolfingen...couldnt find even one pic except for the emmental farmhouse...then i just gave up...and this is my point about pics...just what do these districts and municipalities look like??? we have no idea at all about these areas without pics...every district should have at least 3-5 pics and each municipality should have 1 or 2 so we have some basic clue as to what these places look like...even most oberland districts and municipalities dont even have one pic yet...anyways... now one can go to the bernese canton page and get some sense as to what it looks like without surfing thru hundreds of districts & municipalities to try and find a few photos scattered here and there...Benjiwolf 13:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right now though, in my browser, the text is unreadable because of the way the pictures are laid out.  Having the Jungfrau massif image at the top left the way you have it now doesn't work at all in my browser, and I'm sure it doesn't work very well in others either.  I don't understand why you think there is white space in the lead, the infobox has a picture of the coat of arms and a map, both of which add color and are informative.  If you want a photo at the top, why not put it at the right and above the infobox?  I think the infobox is a better choice for the lead, but at least that way the text would be readable.  Going down further into the Geography section I see lots of pictures all crammed right at the beginning on the left side with the text barely readable because it is sandwiched between them and the bottom of the infobox, then going down further there is a long list of mountains with lots of "boring white space" and no pictures because they are all crammed up at the top instead of spaced evenly or placed with thought near relevant text.  I thought when I put the gallery in that it could use a few more pictures than it had; but I wanted some way to include the two that I had removed from elsewhere but didn't see any place to put near text - but now there are so many pictures in the gallery that they just kind of blur together in the reader's mind instead of adding much to the article.  Before I didn't think there were too many pictures; just that they were poorly laid out.  Now there are too many and they are poorly laid out.  I see you've included some lovely shots of buildings; is Berne noted for its architecture?  Perhaps a section should be added on architecture and some of those pictures could go there.  I'm going to try to clean up what's already here some for right now. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 17:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I saw what was happening when I went home last night.  I use a different browser at home than at work, but haven't been getting on much at home because I've been busy packing and getting ready to move; we're buying a house.  My layout looked good at work; but when I looked at it at home it looked awful.  Your layout looked better at home but awful at work.  The chart I made does turn the focus of this article too much towards mountains, and when I looked at it at home it looked sort of dumb because the infobox pushed it way down and there was an odd gap between the rest of the text and the chart.  I also saw what you were talking about with the white space between the infobox and the table of contents.  That's really odd; and I'm not sure how to fix it so it'll look good no matter what you're using. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 14:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  images