Talk:Bishopric of Constance

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Middle Ages (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Former countries / Holy Roman Empire  (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Holy Roman Empire task force.
 
Note icon
An editor has requested that a flag image be added to this article and placed within the infobox.

I removed the interior link to "Jakob Fugger" because it leads to a different man with the same name -- several generations earlier. It seems to have been a popular name in that family.

"avoid sandwiching text between two images that face each other"[edit]

One has to use common sense. Articles such as this one (Bishopric of Constance) often have an infobox that occupies more space lengthwise than the text of the article itself (not that easy to find enough stuff to write a 2000-word article on the Prince-Bishopric of Constance in English). Which means that to respect the "anti-sandwiching" rule, any maps or photographs either have to be incorporated to the Infobox (max. 1) or relegated at the bottom of the article, and out of view. Yet, in this kind of narrow-focused historical articles, maps and photographs are informative and valuable and usually more so than those (often misleading) dumb infoboxes.

What's more, the "Infobox former country" type of infobox such as the one in this article is quite narrow and the text certainly didn't look "sandwiched" before someone summarily relocated my images to the bottom of the article.

Since we are dealing with "sandwiching":

The major article "European Union" (which has a "this is good article" icon) starts (below the lead) with a whole paragraph "sandwiched" between a very wide Infobox and a picture. Nobody seems to be particularly offended.

The article "Los Angeles" has at least 3 instances of text sandwiched between 2 pictures. Doesn't look "sandwiched" to me!

Same with the Wikipedia articles on Milan, Montreal, Cairo, Belgrade, Mexican Revolution, Seven Years War, etc. etc. etc.

There are myriad Wiki articles with paragraphs fully or partially "sandwiched" between 2 photographs or an infobox and a photograph. And you know what? it doesn't look "sandwiched" and readers don't seem particularly offended.--Lubiesque (talk) 22:18, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm posting this on the talk page of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Image in the hope of getting some feedback.--Lubiesque (talk) 23:02, 12 November 2012 (UTC)