Jump to content

Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Image placeholders/Proposal 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Proposal 2: If placeholder images are retained, they should be modified in appearance

[edit]

If Proposal 1 passes, this proposal is void. If Proposal 1 does not pass, but Proposal 2 does pass, then we will have a subsequent discussion about the nature of any modifications.

Please discuss possible improvements at Centralized discussion/Image placeholders/Ideas for modification of the image placeholder. DoubleBlue (Talk) 15:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One example of an article with a smaller "image" (containing only text) that could be used as a basis for an alternative: HMS Dreadnought (S101). (Note, this example was added to the discussion after 21 !votes have been cast, below. It's probably safe to assume most of those 21 !voters did not see this example.) -Pete (talk) 17:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
again this size thing. Do you know what an SVG is?Genisock2 (talk) 23:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't work.If you follow through the upload process you will see that there is a reason they are placed at the top.Genisock2 (talk) 23:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Except it has already been explained why this won't work.Geni 16:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Agree - Although the software in wikipedia is so limmiting I am not sure what all can be done.Insearchofintelligentlife (talk) 03:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC) Note: We understand Insearchofintelligentlife is a sockpuppet (now blocked) --Kleinzach (talk) 13:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral. I've no objection to the current image, but in principle I don't object to a suitable replacement. A somewhat less obtrusive image would be fine. I rather like the shadow profiles on the human placeholders; I'm not sure about whether objects are better served by similar shadow placeholders or simple text as with Image:No Photo Available.svg or in which situations. olderwiser 12:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree something less intrusive, that allows a relevant image to be used at the top. Johnbod (talk) 12:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Agree But I do not want them retained.Divinediscourse (talk) 20:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC) Note: We understand Divinediscourse was a sockpuppet, now blocked. --Kleinzach (talk) 02:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but a good number (perhaps the majority) of the people whose objections are in regard to appearance want a stub a template at the bottom of the page. As I understand it, the proponents of the placeholder are saying that's impossible.Northwesterner1 (talk) 17:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it's not impossible but not of any real use as it is not a placeholder if it's in the wrong place. DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why it's misleading to say that nearly all objections are in regard to appearance, since many of those objections regarding appearance are about "placement," which is another way of saying they're about "function" (placeholder vs. image request template). Northwesterner1 (talk) 21:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We wouldn’t call a replacement template an “image placeholder,” DoubleBlue. It would be a “request for expansion” like many other templates that are currently in use. I disagree that the template would be “not of any real use” just because of its location. If that were true, then we should get rid of stub templates. – jaksmata 21:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree - They've been changed in appearance a few times, but only by a few people here and there. There's been no wide discussion about what they should look like, but obviously a lot of people think they should look different. Something structured like the original logo contest would work best I think. — Omegatron (talk) 23:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • This proposal is now closed as of Wednesday, April 23 (12.00 GMT/UTC)****

Results

[edit]
Agree Disagree Neutral
22 (81%) 1 (4%) 4 (15%)

Side Comments 1

[edit]

Genisock, I think it would be appropriate for you to move your responses from the proposal section to a separate subsection (such as this) or to the discussion above. I believe the Proposal area is most useful when it doesn't become a back-and-forth. Thanks. Northwesterner1 (talk) 19:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

back and forth is kinda a requirement of logical debate.Genisock2 (talk) 22:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, but it is better to have the back-and-forth elsewhere. You're responding to points that have also been made above, where the discussion is enfolding at greater length.Northwesterner1 (talk) 22:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Side Comments 2

[edit]
  • It's a waste of time having this as a proposal for people to agree/disagree with. Obviously if a better design can be found it should be used, but so far everyone who has agreed wants something different. It makes more sense to have a discussion on how we want the template to look before leaping in to supporting or opposing changing it. --Cherry blossom tree 09:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it " makes more sense to have a discussion on how we want the template to look" if we decide we don't want the template anyway. --Kleinzach (talk) 15:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is true, but then it makes no sense to have this discussion in that case. --Cherry blossom tree 15:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Proposals 2 and 3 only come into effect if Proposal 1 fails. However, Proposal 1 may not be decided for sa week or more. I believe it is useful to have Proposals 2 and 3 active now so that editors who may not return to this discussion later can state ideas for the record. In previous conversations, discussion about whether to have ANY placeholder image has been sidetracked by people who think we could have one if it is modified. Separating these points helps us reach consensus on a "pure" Proposal 1.Northwesterner1 (talk) 19:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that Kleinzach has established the most logical course of action for this discussion. However, I do think it would be constructive to have an area where new proposals for the template/ image could be offered. It is rather distracting to have DoubleBlue's new concept in the middle of the proposal 2 section. I would like to respond to it but I felt my comments would distract from the proposal 2 discussion if made there.Broadweighbabe (talk) 19:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but this simply returns to my first point - the proposals are too vague. If you want to hurry the discussion then by all means start talking about how the current template/process might be altered, but I don't see how asking people to vote for or against unspecified changes is a useful exercise. --Cherry blossom tree 21:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The proposal clearly states, If Proposal 1 does not pass, but Proposal 2 does pass, then we will have a subsequent discussion about the nature of any modifications. This is not a vote for or against unspecified changes. It is a vote that simply says, "If we agree to keep the image placeholders, then we think they should be modified and we will open a discussion about how to modify them." I think that is a useful step in moving us toward a future discussion on this point. I'm not trying to hurry discussion. The vote on Proposal 1 will be open for a significant period of time, and if it fails, the vote on Proposals 2 and 3 should be kept open for a longer period.Northwesterner1 (talk) 21:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree that the method we have going is fine. However, I think there are those who want to start discussing possible modifications and there should be a place to do so, even if such ideas eventually become moot because proposal one is passed. For this reason, I have createed a discussion area at the bottom of the page.Nrswanson (talk) 22:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved the new Ideas for modification section above the proposals. I hope that's acceptable to everybody. It seems logical to keep the proposals at the end.--Kleinzach (talk) 23:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<outdent> I don't think the images should be kept. That said, if they are kept, there are two changes that should be made. The first, I believe, is uncontroversial -- I mentioned it above, nobody responded. It should be done immediately.

  • {{Image class}} should be added to both images, so that they don't appear when articles that contain them are printed. This is how notability, cleanup, etc. boxes are treated.
  • The image should be replaced with a much shallower one (roughly 150x30.) It should not have a silhouette or any image, but just an "image" version of the following text: "Do you own rights to a photo of this article's subject? Please upload it!"

-Pete (talk) 00:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The former is only possible where infoboxes already exist. The latter well no exclamation marks please.Genisock2 (talk) 18:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]