#Star wars revisited cover art archive

Likewise, it's neither here nor there which Inqs voted for it. Wookieepedia:Inq/PadmГ© Amidala's wardrobe. This was under the old voting system, so you have to look at the Inq archives to find the actual Inq vote. Just to show, it wasn't just two Inq who voted for it.That's a bit of a stretch, isn't it, questioning the legitimacy of an FA vote because of its age? If you feel that the Wardrobe article is so hindered by the fact that it has galleries within it, put it up for probation at the next Inquisitorius meeting.- Goodwood ( Alliance Intelligence) 23:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC).Toprawa and Ralltiir 22:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC) The fact that the article went up for vote over a year ago and was voted for by 2 Inqs that currently /do/ things doesn't say a lot for its legitimacy were it on the nomination page presently. I'm well aware, and quite disgusted, to be honest, this this is one of our current FAs.The galleries may not look *good*, but they do look *better* than the alternative. Quite simply, the traditional method of putting images in the text wouldn't - and didn't - work for that article. It WAS put up for FAN looking like that, and after a long dispute over the galleries, was ultimately approved by the Inquisitorius.Toprawa and Ralltiir 22:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC) If someone were to put an article up for FAN looking like that, I suspect they would be advised to use our customary method of alternating images. It's messy and disjointed, and interrupts with the flow and readability of the article. Just because it serves as an example of how it should be done doesn't mean it looks good. I will say that I've had this very conversation with another user just recently.Note that they should still be used very sparingly, typically only in cases where a large number of images are critical to understanding the topic properly. That article demonstrates how these galleries should be used - to illustrate the text of the article in cases where directly inserting the images into the text would be problematic. Funnily enough, Toprawa's link below to our featured article on PadmГ© Amidala's wardrobe has convinced me that we SHOULD allow in-article galleries in at least some instances.Small galleries in articles Allow (sparingly on case-by-case basis) 1.1 Allow (sparingly on case-by-case basis).

To clarify: This is NOT an attempt to overturn the or revert the deletion of gallery pages.' This is merely to clarify on an aspect of it that wasn't clearly covered previously. I placed a small gallery in that article to show/demonstrate some of the Gallefree products. The example of a small demonstrative gallery is the Gallofree Yards, Inc. Some admins have been deleting small galleries in articles and other admins didn't think that small in-article galleries were included in the purge. Small demonstrative galleries in existing articles were not included in this. Stand alone pages that were nothing more than galleries. The way I understood it, that meant gallery pages were going to die. It was agreed community-wide (and I agreed with it) that stand alone gallery pages are no longer going to be allowed. I'd like to bring something up for rediscussion/voting to clarify something on the 'galleries must die' policy. This CT was not an attempt to overturn or revert the deletion of gallery pages which was decided through previous consensus votes. The result was that in those few instances where in-article galleries are proved to be useful, as with book articles and cover galleries, etc., they are allowed to be used. 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.

#Star wars revisited cover art archive

This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion.