Board Thread:New Features/@comment-24739709-20150518230347/@comment-24473195-20150916135336

DEmersonJMFM wrote: In some cases, of course. There isn't always a single image that can represent an article such as characters that have multiple different looks. Artificially choosing one to represent all is just inaccurate. Other cases are meant to show additional information smartly. For example, some infoboxes use tabs to show the front and back of a product such as a DVD. Creating a one image gallery at the end of the page wouldn't sound useful.

I would say slideshows and tabbers are less than ideal in cases where they are just a compilation of random images or different body shots of the same image. It depends on how generalized the image is. For instance, James Bond is a character who has changed quite a few times, and  pupas appearance differ based on species and age. Including all of those images doesn't particularly make much sense.

On a simple google search, the information on "pupa" showed me an image of a butterfly pupa which is more or less good enough to understand what it is. Encyclopedia Britanica shows a single image of pupa, along with other images within the article.

The search for James Bond showed a collage of a bunch of previous characters. Wikipedia's article completely bypassed the issue by using a drawing of James Bond. Britanica, on the other hand shows a recent Bond picture, along with another character.

There are many ways to present information, and there isn't any particular rule determining how it should always be. But the idea of an infobox is to present a short sumary of information, not foster "information overload".