Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Image placeholders/Question 5: What would the ideal system look like

Question 5: What would the ideal system look like (leaving aside practical and technical limitations)?

Genisock2, who it seems has put much of the work into developing both the standard upload form and the "image placeholder" system, has stated that several proposed modifications are not technically feasible. According to him, it's not possible to:

assign a specific (smaller) size to the image placeholder
suppress printout of the image placeholder (as is done for alert boxes like {{confusing}}, {{unreferenced}}, etc.)
put the link in a different location in an article (like the bottom)

I am somewhat tech savvy, and have a general understanding of why it would be difficult to implement each of these things in the present system. However, MediaWiki -- the software used by Wikipedia -- is open source, and its development is primarily funded by the Wikimedia Foundation.

So, an approach we haven't considered is this: develop some consensus around a set of specifications that would be more widely acceptable, and submit it to the "powers that be" as a suggestion for future development of the MediaWiki software. I suspect any of these challenges could be met by modifying the underlying software (though it would undoubtedly take time to implement.)

Thoughts? -Pete (talk) 17:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that even if there was consensus here that specific technical changes were necessary to implement the desired system, actually making those changes would be a very low priority for the developers. Developer time is so limited that someone with an interest in this issue would probably need to submit the patches themselves. --Cherry blossom tree 19:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The size issue can be dealt with in a number of ways (well it could be if people would actually state what the issue is in a way that made some sense) but assigning a size isn't really meaningful. Unfortunately fixing the issue would require rather a lot of infoboxes to be modified and in any case would create usability issues for users with poor eyesight. As for modifications to mediawiki not really going to happen. There was at one time a project to modify the upload system but I haven't heard anything about that for over a year. That said the recent modifications to how mediawiki handles images (you won't really have notice mostly database stuff) may suggest some changes are on the way.Genisock2 (talk) 21:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Genisock2, I made a specific suggestion about size above, and your response was: "The former is only possible where infoboxes already exist."

I would like to leave aside opinions about how likely modifications to the software are; I would that if the Foundation's development community is not able to be responsive to carefully-considered consensus, then something is pretty wrong, but that debate is a distraction from the issue at hand.

I do think that establishing what would be most desirable, independent of technical feasibility, is a worthwhile goal. I oppose the system as presently implemented, but would enthusiastically support a system like this:

Placeholder is at the end of the article (where stub templates are currently placed)
No larger than necessary (150x150 seems larger than necessary to me, but this factor in itself would not make me oppose the system)
Placeholder does not appear when the article is printed out

I'll concede this proposal may be academic, but it seems worth leaving as part of the lasting record of our discussion, in case anybody ever thinks of a technical way to make this happen. Would anybody oppose a system like this? -Pete (talk) 23:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1) ~~isn't possible~~ and neutralizes the effectiveness of the system (okey it is possible but would require a near complete rewrite of the user interface)

2) accessibility issues prevent going below 150*150

3) I think technically possible would likely cause other issues

Genisock2 (talk) 23:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If something like bugzilla:8298 was implemented it could be used to solve the printout issue at least, just assign a "no print" class to the images via a magic word on the image page itself. Far better than having to surround each instance of the a placeholder with extra tags or add a lot of extra code to infoboxes to make them "placeholder aware" to achieve the same result. --Sherool (talk) 01:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Technical possibility is discussed extensively elsewhere, and is explicitly something I'm trying to leave out of this section. Pretty much anything is possible with computer programming; it may take significantly more work, but that's beside the point. That's why I've struck part of your comment above.

Accessibility issues -- please explain how an area that contains only text (no silhouette) would be less accessible than the present version. The text could be in the same point size as the current image. If you insist on this point I suppose I could create an example, but is it really that hard to understand? -Pete (talk) 23:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think opinions about the likelihood of software modifications are relevant to this debate. You said: "I would that if the Foundation's development community is not able to be responsive to carefully-considered consensus, then something is pretty wrong." I disagree. We don't have many developers and those that we do have are mostly focused on keeping the websites running and important issues that affect many projects, like Single User Logon and Flagged Revisions. It's entirely appropriate that a fairly trivial issue like this would be given a lower priority. --Cherry blossom tree 09:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I didn't introduce this section well enough. This section is no way intended to replace other discussion sections that deal with technical or practical limitations, but to complement them. If this subject doesn't interest you, why not just focus on other parts of the discussion? -Pete (talk) 14:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a non-tech person I'm having a lot of trouble getting my head round all this. I've read the text above several times. Would it be simpler if we all agreed there should be no image placeholder at all in the infobox? That the successor to the image placeholder (whatever it is) has no connection with the infobox? (As we know the infobox works perfectly well without the image placeholder). Also, for stylistic reasons, can we make this section heading into a question with a question mark at the end?--Kleinzach (talk) 00:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image size is controlled by a parameter in the infobox or, if placed directly in article, by stating the size.
Printing is suppressed by using {{Image class}} in the infobox.
Placeholder Image belongs where the image will be placed.

Cheers! DoubleBlue (Talk) 02:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well none of you seem to be doing what Pete asked so I am going to. In my ideal vision, the photo request would look like a stub at the bottom. It would have a tiny little photo icon with a text message saying, you can improve this article by uploading a photo, click here. Then the click here would take you to an easy upload system that is user friendly. I personally think that this is possible now. All you would have to do is get the person to download the image placeholder onto the page themselves and then add the photo. Just give them a talk through on the clickable link at the bottom.Nrswanson (talk) 14:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like that idea nrswanson. It seems like this would not be distracting to the article while still providing an easier means for uploading a photo.Broadweighbabe (talk) 17:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The obvious issue with this approach is that I can't imagine it would attract nearly as many images. On long-ish articles the notice would be hidden beneath external links, references and see also sections and on shorter ones it would blend into all the other stub tags. --Cherry blossom tree 13:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True but it would probably get more images than we do without having it there. It would also be a handy link for wikipedia editors who want to upload photos through an easier process. And I don't view not having a photo as a big deal so for me that is really a non-issue.Nrswanson (talk) 15:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is an acceptable compromise IMHO. howcheng {chat} 04:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with nrswanson's proposal. Guroadrunner (talk) 12:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on accessibility -- What standard of accessibility is being used here? Is it BOBBY, or another format? IMHO, the images would be fine at 100*100 or 75*75, but the current size is too large. If the images need to be this large (please provide reason based on accessibility standard used), could they be less intrusive or more plain? Guroadrunner (talk) 12:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]