Template talk:Infobox Item

Image Rearrangement
I think we should consider modifying the image placement in this template. There are lots of items that we have large images for, due to them being included in the Update of the Avatar, but do not have drag icons. I think swapping the images might make more sense in the long run. Here's what I'm thinking.

I think this would make everything a little cleaner, especially until we get dragicons for all items. (The template is locked, so an admin would need to make this change; I'm not sure of the exact coding necessary to move/fix the Icon row.) --Browncoat Jayson (talk) 03:34, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I prefer the icon on top for four reasons.
 * 1) From a usefulness while playing the game perspective the icon is what they are going need to be able to recognize while digging through their packs and/or vice versa it is what they will identify the item with on the wiki and then be looking for when they are digging in their packs. Also it is what they will be seeing elsewhere on the wiki in recipe lists and such.
 * 2) Size-wise the icon is predictably small, of matching qualities and (usually) squarish. The image is going to be a range of sizes, ratios and qualities. Causes a lack of consistency which shouldn't be at the top of the infobox. Better to have it at the bottom where the picture can stretch as far down as it likes.
 * 3) Images are bigger so having them on top forces the other useful information down further.
 * 4) I'm making an estimated guess but I think all items will have icons but not all items will have images. Iron Hilt for example will probably never have an image.
 * (Random fact: We currently have 161 icons and 123 images) -- Fenyx4 (talk) 16:37, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't it just be easier to use the icon as the image if no actual image exists then? I'm not sure why we want to show both. I really don't like seeing the large image below all of the other information; it looks very odd. If we want to use the icon in the infobox, then the main image should probably be removed and placed in the topic itself. --Browncoat Jayson (talk) 17:37, 24 March 2014 (UTC)