Forums: Index > The Wizengamot archive > Moving images

I've noticed that there are a lot of the these moving images on the site recently. I'm curious to know if this is going to be some sort of new standard. I think it's a good idea to cerain degree as it ties in with the whole thing of pictures moving in the wizarding world. But I also think it could be distracting when reading the articles. Does anyone else have any thoughts on the matter. Jayce Carver Slytherincrest Talk 08:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the moving images are any more distracting than the still ones. I like them mainly because they can sometimes accentuate the articles better, for example the pictures on the Animagus article. The only disadvantage is that videos take up more download usage for the Internet and might cause some articles to take longer to load. I still love the moving pictures though. Margiechocoholic 08:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I tend to find animated images in articles to be a distraction, although I agree they tie in to the HP series, and help lend articles a more in-universe feel. I think we should limit their use to things which might be more easily understood with a visual aid than through a text description alone (e.g., Animagus transformation, the way the bricks open up on Diagon Alley behind the Leaky Cauldron, etc.). Starstuff (Owl me!) 03:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I think that the moving images make an article look appealing to the reader. However, if there sre too many it may become a distraction. ShirleyA 04:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Starstuff, still images should only be used, except when a moving image is required to better illustrate a point or idea. --Margiechocoholic.
Moving images are in my opinion a geat asset in an aricle. They make it look more appealing to the reader,giving a more clear view of the subject. I believe that we should try to get more of these images in Harry Potter wiki. 96ken(Talk) 12:27, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I think they're kind of distracting. Also they tend to be of a much lower quality than the stills on the Wiki. -- DarkJedi613 (Talk) 14:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC)