File talk:IIH.png

Smaller image[edit]

How about making a less BOLD version of this, since some instances are going to be around for a long time, and some people are put off by its appearance? The height of the image is rarely necessary to getting the formatting of a page to look nice, so we could get by with something smaller. The stencil typeface is appropriate, but shrink it so if fits on one line; something like this:

 ___________________________
|                           |
|    INSERT  IMAGE  HERE    |
|___________________________|

—wwoods 23:44, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Better? ➥the Epopt 05:41, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, thanks. I think the smaller version does look better. More of a "Pardon our dust" than a direct order.—wwoods 01:43, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Fourth Wall[edit]

Doesn't this somehow violate our fourth wall rules of not putting to-do lists in the middle of articles? Falcon 18:49, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, it looks bad. Really bad. That is, very unprofessional look. Wikipedia already has things like "Articles needing to fix X", why not make one of those for these images? Ash Lux 8 July 2005 01:45 (UTC)

Is anyone actually doing anything about this? IIH.png violates the Fourth Wall and should be removed (or preferably replaced by the required picture). Dr Santa 18:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! This is an interesting question, though it seems that an interactive, user-written encyclopedia with a big "Edit this page" tab on every page makes any "fourth wall" kinda tenuous. Where is "fourth wall" and other such policies written?

I have a minor concern about the new wording. "No Photo Available" could be interpreted by a reader as "none in existance" which is not the intention. How about "No Image in Archive", or similar? It's more precise, the image might not be a photo, and there is still the hint that the future reader/editor could submit one. --Saintrain 15:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC) & 00:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Insert title here[edit]

Insert text here Andjam 23:56, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Violates policy[edit]

By explicitly referring to the idea that the article can be edited, this image seems to be in clear violation of Wikipedia: Avoid self-reference. I would contend that these articles should simply have no image at all. I realise this is an established tradition, but it really wouldn't make any sense in print, or on a fork's website. Deco 22:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Accidental reversion[edit]

Sorry but I just reverted to a previous verson of this image by hitting Rev. I'll try to fix it. Nonenmac 14:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

transparent image needed ASAP[edit]

I just accidently ran into this when looking up CSS Charleston. In my opinion, I think this makes the infobox look unprofessional. My first thought was that the infobox was using an image from a 3rd-party image server somewhere on the internet, and the image no longer existed. I think instead this image should be a 100% pure transparent image of either the same size or 1x1 pixel to hide the existence from the users. Remember that Wikipedia is for the readers, not for the editors. In this case, having a glaring INSERT IMAGE HERE at the top of the article turns the article into a memo for future editors. --Stephane Charette 05:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through some of the related articles that use this image, I note that some have infoboxes with text such as insert caption here and (insert link to larger image here). This is similar to the image problem described above, and makes it difficult for the reader to interpret the article/infobox as authorative, since it makes it look more like we're viewing the article in the middle of an edit session. Two quick examples of this would be USS Takanis Bay (CVE-89) and USS Munda (CVE-104). --Stephane Charette 05:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No Photo Available[edit]

Perhaps I should have discussed this first, but I kind of agree with the 4th wall issues raised earlier. www.imdb.com uses a stylized no photo available image for actors without images. I think an image should be used as it helps people like me find articles that need photos via the what links here function. Maybe someone can do better, but replacing the wording and shrinking it seems like a good alternative to the demanding insert image here. --Dual Freq 00:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox usage[edit]

Some infoboxes have "Edit" links within the box, which are also a self-reference within an article. I think "No photo available" is more reasonable in such obvious "fill-in-the-form" styles than if it were to appear in the middle of a long text dissertation. At least the "No photo available" phrasing is more of a statement of fact than is the previous command "Insert image here". (SEWilco 18:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Encouraging uploads[edit]

thumb|right|150pxHi all. Recently, we've had a lot of biographical pages modified to include this image (on right), which through a cunning hack allows us to "guide" people uploading images. (Wikipedia:Fromowner documentation has an explanation)

Would it be worth working out a similar concept to replace the use of this image? It's a little harder for casual replacement, but you never know what's out there... Shimgray | talk | 13:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]