Talk:Bogie Coal Wagons

I am sorry but I cannot see the advantage in shrinking all the pictures to postage-stamp size. In descriptive articles like the wagon pages I think it helps to see a decent-sized image of the item in question and read the description at the same time. Much easier than clicking on the thumbnail to get a larger image so you can see the details, and having to flip between that and the text. It would save you a lot of work, too, if you were thinking of doing it in all the wagon pages. George Cash (talk) 20:20, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Generally I agree the wagon pages should be in an image gallery format with larger images. However this page has more text than images, so I thought I'd try it in a more "texty" format. Long term I might try a few more page styles I have in mind before choosing the best one. In particular the packed type gallery which adjusts with your browser size looks promising. Eheaps (talk) 20:55, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

See EAG Wagons for an example using the packed type gallery. I think it works quite well... Eheaps (talk) 14:06, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes that's not bad. Much better than the version in the Carriage 22 page, where the captions are overlaid on part of the image, and a short picture has truncated a long caption. George Cash (talk) 14:20, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Latest version of this page is looking pretty good. I agree that the captions aren't great on the Carriage 22 page. I think the general overlayed style is quite nice but it should probably only be used where images are of a appropriate size and have suitable space at the bottom to ensure nothing important is hidden. Eheaps (talk) 16:37, 9 February 2018 (UTC)