Talk:Campo Imperatore

I have tried to improve the photo layout and expand the text. Comparing this article with Wikipedia featured Geographical content shows that the use of photos here is by no means excessive as one editor suggests.SilviaManno 23:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However, I believe adding your own pictures might be a bit too much. The flowers are nice, but the winter view that was previously there was a lot more impressive. Since the amount of text here is rather limited, I still believe two large pictures should suffice, with the rest in the gallery below. However, let's see how other people feel about this. Classical geographer 21:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added a winter picture as Classical geographer suggested replacing picture of yellow flowers. Also added refs. to cross country skiing, which seems to be growing in popularity if this winter is a measure.SilviaManno (talk) 19:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your explanation. Indeed the winter picture is quite impressive. (You might want to change the filename into something more descriptive, though.) I've cleaned up a bit - Wikipedia is not a photo album - leaving two nice pictures in the main section, with the rest in the Gallery. Classical geographer (talk) 19:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I see you were still working on it, and doing the same thing. Classical geographer (talk) 19:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest we make the main picture bigger. Campo Imperatore is something Italians are quite proud off. American guests I took there earlier in January, gasped at its beauty saying they never realized how much like the wilds of Montana it was. SilviaManno (talk) 00:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I revised the caption and resized the photo, too small for my liking and probably too big for CG's, which means its probably about right.SilviaManno (talk) 01:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Silvia,

The picture size I had left undefined, so that it would default to what a user has set as a preference. (I myself have a large screen resolution, so I've set it to 300px.) This is explained at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Images:

Specifying the size of a thumbnail image is not necessary: without specifying a size, the width will be what readers have specified in their user preferences, with a default of 180px (which applies for the overwhelming majority of readers), and a maximum of 300px. However, the image subject or image properties may call for a specific image width to enhance the readability or layout of an article. Cases where a specific image width is appropriate include:

* images with extreme aspect ratios
* detailed maps, diagrams or charts
* images in which a small region is relevant, but cropping to that region would reduce the coherence of the image

* a lead image that captures the essence of the article (recommended not to be smaller than 300px, as this will make the image smaller for users who have set 300px in their user preferences).
— Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Images

Classical geographer (talk) 08:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]