[Wikipedia-l] Re: Image width

[Daniel Mayer]

On Wednesday 24 July 2002 05:56 pm, Karen wrote:
> I don't even try to get the text to wrap because I think the page often
> looks neater if it doesn't wrap when you're putting a fairly large pic
> in. I standardise my image size to about 300 or 400 pixels across
> because again I think it looks neater if all the images match up in a
> row.

In the case of images that size I would simply center them inline to the text 
so they look nice in browsers that are 1000+ pixels wide. Having images that 
wide though should be reserved for special cases -- like in the [[Yosemite 
Valley]] article for example. If the image is just of somebodies portrait or 
of an organism, then please downsize the image to between 150-250 pixels and 
then wrap the text around it (perhaps placing the larger version on the 
thumb's image page). This is pretty standard practice on other webpages and 
has analogues in the print media (If you need quick access to a very simple, 
right or left aligned table, just place one on your user page). 

Anything wider than 250 pixels begins to crowd-out wrapped text for people 
with screen resolutions of 800 by 600 pixels -- which is the largest single 
group of web-surfers BTW (MS Windows default). 

--mav