Latest comment: 16 years ago114 comments13 people in discussion
It’s true that we haven’t reached a consensus yet, but it ain’t over yet. The straw-polls on the proposals were good in that they gave us a sense of where we stand, and how close to a consensus we are. Two-thirds of editors don’t want image placeholders at all. Even though one-third think that the placeholders should stay, less than 5% of editors think that they should stay as-is, although reasons vary.
Although I (and others who share my opinion) could continue to argue for deletion of the whole system, I think there’s a more productive route: Given the types of arguments given against the placeholders, I believe it’s possible to modify them in a way that would swing the majority to a “keep” opinion. Under Question 8, I’ve given a suggestion that I think would satisfy almost everyone on both sides (although I’ve only received feedback from one editor – thanks DoubleBlue). Some others have made suggestions too, and to be fair, I don’t think any suggestion has received adequate discussion.
I say we move forward and begin the discussion about the nature of any modifications as agreed to in Proposal 2. I would particularly like to hear modification suggestions from those who have been most vocal in support of the current system.
Please make suggestions in sections below, and discuss each suggestion in its section. I’m going to make the first, and I encourage others to comment on it and/or add their own suggestion section.comment added by Jaksmata 14:34, 25 April 2008
Objection
Was consensus reached by April 23? Discussed extensively below.
Objection! We do have a consensus. It's been expressed in the discussion. Our job is now to interpret it and write a conclusion. We can't expect 50-odd people who have given their opinions to return and give them again. This section effectively reopens Question 8 which was closed down after full discussion. --Kleinzach (talk) 23:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I also repeat that you should have that discussion - which will be on the conclusions of the centralized discussion. However, as you know, we closed down the various 'Questions' we were debating in order to move forward. This section merely goes at a tangent, bypassing the main business, reopening Question 8. --Kleinzach (talk) 01:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
If you're under the impression that we do have a consensus on Proposal 1, What's to interpret? Why aren't you removing placeholders? I don't think we have a consensus on Proposal 1. Now Proposal 2 is different: 80% of editors there support changing the existing system and another 15% don't care if the existing system is changed (that makes only 5% opposed to any changes). That sounds more like consensus to me, which is why this isn't a tangent - this is the result of everything we've talked about so far. Quoting proposal 2: "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 that subsequent discussion, and yes, consider Question 8 reopened.
By the way, it might be nice if we could get someone (uninvolved so far) with experience at interpreting difficult consensus cases to give a ruling on the consensus issue (like a bureaucrat?). I'll admit it's a borderline case; a strong majority, yes; a consensus is a stretch. – jaksmata06:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
KISS solution
Proposal had some promising aspects, but has been superseded by more popular one below
First alternate KISS placeholder imageSecond alternate KISS placeholder image
To kick it off, I’m going to re-suggest what I’m going to call the KISS solution. I propose we use one of the images at right (I prefer the “short” one). I’ve also made a mockup in my userspace of how a biographical article would look using these images to help visualization.
The benefits of this solution include:
A blank white area isn't usually considered “ugly” and it doesn’t distract from the article
It uses a neutral, medium-sized font colored “clickable blue”
There's no gender issue
There's no unprofessional “click here” message
There's no implication of Wikipedia's incompleteness, there's not even a reference to Wikipedia
comment added by Jaksmata 14:34, 25 April 2008
Thank you Jaksmata. I think this is definitely the way forward. I have some thoughts and a concern about this particular solution but I think that can be addressed.
I think simple and clean is good
I like not using the words "click here" which is frowned upon
I like that this image could be used as a placeholder for any kind of image
I like that the uploader can still use the simple instructions to "replace this image" when adding it to the article
I think it is weak in that it does not say what kind of image we need; i.e., free-use.
Here is why: To the potential uploader who sees this image, the first step is likely to look to see if they can find a photo of the subject, then click the "upload" image. By then, finally seeing that we need a image they own themselves, they have already invested some time and energy that will likely be wasted and they will either abandon uploading feeling frustrated or, still in frustration, upload it anyway. It was also noted in the previous discussion that a side benefit to the placeholder is that it seems to reduce the placement of copyrighted images on articles and that may be because it says that "no free image" is currently available.
Can we think of a different phrasing that will make it clearer what is needed? Perhaps "Upload an image you own" or "Upload a copyright-free image" (though technically not precisely what's needed, it works).
DoubleBlue (Talk)16:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
The focus would probably be better put on ownership since the rest of the system is built on that basis.Geni17:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Geni, I'm not sure I understand your comment. What exactly do you think needs to be changed to set the appropriate focus? – jaksmata18:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. I support this line of discussion, but this solution won't convince me that placeholders should stay. 1) That is not a medium-sized font. It's huge. A medium-sized font would be the same as the body text. 2) Like DoubleBlue, I think the wording will invite more copyvios than the current placeholder, as it seems to be inviting users to upload ANY image. 3) I think the placement of this large box in the top right corner does not address graphic design (aesthetic) concerns and still detracts from the article.Northwesterner1 (talk) 17:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Doubleblue, I think everyone understands that, but the big words on the image itself are likely to receive much more attention than the list of instructions on the linked page. I think this general approach is promising, but would still prefer something less obtrusive, like the proposals below. If we stick with this approach, I still think that using a PNG might be a better option, as its size would be consistent when used outside infoboxes. I like the wording, nice and simple. Genisock, I don't see any attempt at voting. If you're talking about NW1's "oppose," I think that's better understood as a brief summary of his opinion, meant to help future participants in skimming the comments. -Pete (talk) 18:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Image with DoubleBlue's textI'm not opposed to either of DoubleBlue's rephrasing suggestions, and I can easily reduce the font size - it is bigger than I expected that it would be. (I just got an SVG editor yesterday, and I'm still figuring it out.) My intention was for one of these images to be used linking to Wikipedia:Upload/Replace this image. The image itself could even be named "Replace this image.svg" or something to that effect. How does this one look? – jaksmata18:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
hmm general wikipedia image guides tend to be opposed to boarders built into images. Incerdentaly there is a trick that would allow a degree of control over whitespace but it uses a technique that has been opposed in the past (basicaly useing unicode to produce different but identical looking names).Geni02:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't have any preference over border or borderless and the whitespace given in the latest version seems perfect to me without having to use any tricks. DoubleBlue (Talk)02:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Much of the current deployment ins in thumbs and the whitespace causes the text to become problematicaly small when it appears in a thumbnail.Geni15:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Something I just thought of: this solution would be the easiest to implement, because all you'd have to do is replace a few existing images. Other solutions would involve editing 50k+ articles (personally, I don't have the time or the bot!). – jaksmata19:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Strongly oppose. These are still placeholders and placeholders have already been overwhelmingly rejected by participants. We should not be discussing them at this stage. --Kleinzach (talk) 23:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Disagree with Kleinzach -- That doesn't exactly paint the consensus. At least not for me. My beef is the obtrusiveness of the image, nothing more, nothing less. Guroadrunner (talk) 06:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Discussion regarding process
Older "meta" discussion; these issues now under discussion on the talk page.
"Greatest common good?" Fine, no doubt including climate change awareness! But this should come after conclusion. Conclusion of the debate (if it is not hijacked by a vocal minority) should be a new point of departure for technical changes etc. --Kleinzach (talk) 02:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
We have not yet reached a consensus on the entire thus we have not yet reached a conclusion. This being the case it makes sense to work from where there is consensus. There is much support for placeholder modification thus looking into that would appear to be a good place to start.Geni02:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Given that a substantial majority disagreed with having a placeholder of any description at the top of the article page, I'm with Kleinzach here. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a democracy. We decide things through reasoned debate. Attempting to being a debate to a premature end is therefor frowned on.Geni02:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, and in any case participants agreed to end the detailed discussions on April 23rd. We should now be drafting the conclusion in the light of WP policies. --Kleinzach (talk) 02:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
No, I disagree. We've already had the discussion about the placeholders in the proper place and at the proper time. An attempt by a small minority to change that discussion disempowers those that took part in that discussion. --Kleinzach (talk) 02:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Kleinzach. Since, helpfully, the main arguments and issues had already been well set out (at least by the time I first came here), I don't buy that discussion has not taken place. Johnbod (talk) 03:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Why is this being discussed in a section about the KISS solution? Discussion about it belongs here. Discussions about the discussion belong on talk. DoubleBlue (Talk)13:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Surely you have noticed that in a centralized discussion, that discussion takes place on on the main page, not the Talk page? --Kleinzach (talk) 14:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, a substantial majority (including myself) disagreed with having a placeholder, but most of the concerns brought up by that majority have been addressed (fixed) by using this image instead of the current one. This could be a middle ground between those who want placeholders and those who... well look at the benefits above - I already wrote it there. – jaksmata06:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
KISS Solution modified
Another older suggestion; largely superseded by later suggestion, below.
This is one example of what a truly medium-sized font would look like: same as the body font. I prefer the stub and footnote solutions outlined below; however, if we need to have a true "placeholder," then I could support something like this if used in infoboxes only. The problem is that something this size would have to be used as a jpeg and not an svg, meaning that we would need different images for different size infoboxes (placeholder200px.jpg, placeholder220px.jpg, etc.), and/or the image would have to be designed to float centered in infoboxes. Maybe someone else could come up with a better technical solution.Northwesterner1 (talk) 18:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I think that no matter what format the file is in, it will be scaled (up or down) by the containing infobox to fit the width alloted for it. The SVG format just assures that the resulting scaled image will not look blocky, which would happen with PNG, or have JPG-like artifacts around the text. – jaksmata18:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm suggesting that we need something that keeps the text small, i.e., the same size as the body text, i.e., something that is not scaled up or down. Not only the same size, but also the same font and appearance as the body text. This would help address aesthetic concerns; as any graphic designer will tell you, consistency in text styles is the best way to have a page look nice. There may be a way to accomplish this through text coding of the infobox. Otherwise we need jpeg/pngs of various sizes to fit various infoboxes OR a jpeg/png that floats centered in the infobox. I agree it's a clunky solution, and I much prefer the stub template solution below.Northwesterner1 (talk) 18:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
This is a workable solution as well. I like that it specifies why we don't have a photo already. (i.e., no free image available) but suppose it isn't necessary, just informative. Jaksmata's comments about image formats is a consideration but could be done for this version as well, I believe. DoubleBlue (Talk)19:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
It seems my idea doesn't work very well. I believe that for the placeholder to stay in the template, it needs to be the same font and size as the body text in all applications. I think bold is okay. In other words, it needs to look more like an "infobox header" than an image. I tried to achieve this with a jpeg, but I see that it is not possible. Neither is it possible with an svg or any other image. Techies out there: Is there a text-only solution that would work with recoding of the infoboxes?Northwesterner1 (talk) 20:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment. In my view the example above by Northwesterner1 is not a placeholder as it does not occupy a space for a future image. This is important. IMO a non-placeholder solution should be acceptable to most participants. For my own part, this solution if used in infoboxes only and at the foot of the article page, is indeed acceptable.
However this is a centralized discussion about image placeholders, not about alternatives. We should decide what to do with the placeholders now while encouraging the group concerned to come up with alternatives - after the discussion has ended. --Kleinzach (talk) 23:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
The problem with the 'medium sized font' is that it remains a medium sized font even if someone has poor eyesight and has set all the other fonts on the page to be 'very large'. If you wish to use a solution like this then you'd need to find a way to allow the font size to scale with the rest of the page. --Cherry blossom tree09:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I see this problem -- which is why I've retracted the idea. I think this makes any image/text hybrid unworkable, as the size cannot be controlled easily in any image, given the variability of the placeholder boxes, and given the inability of images to scale along with text for low-eyesight readers. For this reason, I believe we need to abandon image based solutions and look to text based solutions (stub templates, etc.). I would really love to see someone design a text-only "infobox" header that functions like an image-based placeholder. I think it can be done.Northwesterner1 (talk) 06:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Something like the example you posted or indeed any of the text only examples could fairly easily be recreated in wikitext, I would think. An image could possibly be incorporated but I don't think (not an expert opinion) it could be used as a background. --Cherry blossom tree15:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Cherry blossom tree, we don't need to reinvent the wheel. People who can't read the text can click into the image, and are likely familiar with doing that (they'd need to do it with any image on Wikipedia that is too small to make out.) Also, if you're assuming that a user has blown up text size, why not assume they would blow up image sizes as well? Furthermore, HTML has accommodations for people with poor eyesight with ALT tags, and MediaWiki observes them; if you browse with images turned off, the caption is displayed where an image otherwise would be. I think there's merit in this approach, though making sure it's sized such that it works well as a thumbnail is important. -Pete (talk) 18:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I didn't see Cherry blossom tree's final response before I wrote that; using text seems a good option, as well. -Pete (talk) 18:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
The images I proposed could be recreated in wikitext, but they would not work with existing infoboxes. For example, {{Infobox actor}} has a parameter called "image". If you tried to transclude a template there, you would get this in the infobox: [[Image:Template:UploadACopyrightFreeImage|220px]] (try experimenting in the sandbox to see what I mean). The template expects a file name and adds "image:", parameters and link brackets around the value given. Putting a template in image space might solve problems for some types of infoboxes, but it would almost certainly be frowned upon. Technical solutions to put a template into the image parameter of an infobox would make them less intuitive for people not familiar with wiki template syntax. In summary: a text-only solution might be possible, but would involve a lot of technical trickery. If text size is the paramount issue, the literal placeholder aspect of image solicitation would have to be abandoned. If anyone has an easy solution involving scalable text that would be transcluded inside an infobox, please post a mock-up of how it would work. Obviously, this is not an issue in an image solicitation device such as the Stub template solution. – jaksmata18:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I would support a stub template at the bottom of the page, based on Template:Stub. It would have a VERY small picture of a camera. The text would say "This article lacks a free image. If you own one, you can help Wikipedia by uploading it." The text Uploading it would link to an upload page specially designed for new users. The photos would go into a category, and more experienced editors would check for copyvios AND place the image in the appropriate article. As this solution would not be a "placeholder," we would need a wikiproject or a group of volunteers to manually place the images in articles. Seems manageable with the number of images we're talking about.Northwesterner1 (talk) 17:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Users would be instructed to add appropriate information about the photo that could be used to identify it and place it in an appropriate article. They should be doing that anyway, as many of these photos are not used in infoboxes and thus need captions.Northwesterner1 (talk) 17:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I didn't say that. I said "many are not," which is demonstrably true. Regardless, it's irrelevant. Uploaded images should have full captions in the description on the image page. It doesn't seem difficult to modify the image instructions to ask users to include this info when uploading a new photo.Northwesterner1 (talk) 17:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
We go through all this and you still haven't actualy bothered to pay much attention to the existing system. What does the last line of step 2 on the Upload file page say?Geni20:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
It says, provide a caption and include the name of the article it should be used in. So that would seem to negate Double Blue's comment "How would we know which article the image belongs in?" I apologize for missing this. Double Blue knows the system better than I do, so I thought s/he had raised a point that needed to be addressed. So basically there is no problem with management in this system.Northwesterner1 (talk) 20:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
You think people always follow that instruction? The current system has at least 3 ways built into in to find out what the article the image should be in. People generaly manage one of them.Geni20:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I like this approach. A possible modification: this could include the "placeholder" approach, as well -- the uploaded image could replace the picture of the camera, and the instructions could include a line or two about how to move the image to the proper part of the article. Even if uploaders get that bit wrong, it's easy for other editors to move the image up; the hard part, getting a free use image, will have been taken care of. -Pete (talk) 18:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I have nothing against this solution - I think it would work ok and it would look ok. However, I'm going to give stronger support to the placeholder image that says "upload a copyright-free image" because I think it will be easier to get a consensus if the placeholder stays where it currently is (in the infobox). – jaksmata19:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm a little confused. It sounds like you're using "easier to get consensus" in a way that means "easier to appease the minority of editors who support the placeholder." Given that 2/3 of participants in this discussion would like to see the placeholder images off the main page of the article entirely, it seems to me that a stub-like template at the bottom of the page should be seen as a step toward compromise and consensus...Northwesterner1 (talk) 19:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have worded that better. What I meant was, it seems like some users really want the placeholder to stay in the infobox, and if the placeholder can be modified to look ok to most users, I don't think it needs to be moved to the bottom. I am among the 2/3 who would rather it gone completely, but yes, I'm trying to appease the other third with a comprise that I think appeals to the most people. Certainly, if the Stub solution gains the most support, I'm for it. Like I said, I have nothing against this solution. I think both solutions are steps towards consensus, and I'll support either. – jaksmata20:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't quite understand how Pete's solution would work. I am against just putting the images in an image bank for others to add to the article at a later date. The wiki principle is to allow ordinary people to change the article themselves on the fly and see the change immediately. DoubleBlue (Talk)19:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
: I'm not saying it should go in a bank somewhere, but that it could replace the camera image, much as it now replaces the infobox image. If the uploader fails to follow the last steps in the instructions, the image would end up at the bottom of the article. Not ideal, but a very easy and obvious fix for a more experienced editor; just move it, within the same article, up to the top or the infobox. -Pete (talk) 19:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Pete, it sounds like you're confused about "automatic replacement," as I was. (See Double Blue's explanation below.) The images are not replaced automatically. The new users who upload the photo actually take an active step in putting it somewhere on the page. Currently, they are instructed to copy and paste over the placeholder image. So your suggestion to have two steps in the instructions, (i.e. "Please place the image in the top right corner, but if you're not quite clear how to do that, then just replace the camera in the stub template.") seems unnecessarily confusing. A better solution: instead of instructions that tell new users to replace the image placeholder with image code, we would just need to give them clear instructions on how to place a photo on the page. We could teach them how to put image code in an infobox, or we could just instruct them how to copy and paste a line of image code at the top of the page. If there is no infobox, it would lay out correctly. If there is an infobox, then other editors who are watching the page or the category of uploaded images can quickly step into move the photo and improve layout.Northwesterner1 (talk) 19:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
We know from the useability study that attempts to provide simple instructions for adding an image to a page have failed. And that was before your average page had 30 feet of markup on it.Geni20:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Northwesterner, you're right. I just ran a test of the system, and found that I had a fundamental misunderstanding about how it works. (I've struck my ill-informed comments above.) I will have to do a lot of thinking now; I had thought the system's proponents were saying it needed to be in the infobox, because that's where the image gets replaced. If it doesn't get replaced, all the technical concerns seem ill-founded. In short, the system now seems a lot less valuable to me than it did initially. I regret not running the test all the way through before; I'd probably recommend others run a test, too. (And I'm off to speedy-delete a crappy photo of me!) -Pete (talk) 20:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
As I've mentioned elsewhere, I like the "template at the bottom" approach, and I like Northwesterner1's phrasing. My ignorance of bots is even greater than my ignorance of image procedures, so please forgive me if this is a silly question, but could a bot be designed to move freshly-imported but inappropriately located images to their appropriate locations atop articles? Drhoehl (talk) 20:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Technicaly yes but it would make a complete mess of infoboxes. Problem is that infoboxes lack standardisation havening been built by various people of the course of years in various ways. The upshot of this is that unless you accept thumbnails placed above infoboxes and people won't you have to try and place them in the infoboxes and until we get some standardisation this is going to continue to be a problem.Genisock2 (talk) 21:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment I think this all goes beyond the present discussion. It should be looked into later. Having said that I personally agree with Northwesterner1 sensible (stub template based) idea. --Kleinzach (talk) 00:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
The main aim of image placeholders was to generate free images. I'm not sure that a stub template-type notice would achieve this. On a long page the template would be hidden underneath a see also section, a references section, an external links section and whatever else, and almost no-one would ever see it. On a stub it would blend in with two or three other stub templates and almost no-one would ever see it. --Cherry blossom tree09:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Fact footnote
Suggestion withdrawn
Note: As there does not seem to be any support for this idea, I am withdrawing it to clean up the discussion.Northwesterner1 (talk) 22:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I would support an in-line template similar to Template:Fact. It could be used in the lead of the article, like this: "John Doe (born 1952 in Low Pass, Oregon) is a mysterious man.[citation needed]" Except instead of saying "citation needed" the note would say "image needed." It would link to an article explaining the upload process for new users, etc. Again, as this is not a placeholder, we would need other editors to manually place the images in articles.Northwesterner1 (talk) 17:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
As for the stub-like template, I think this would be difficult to manage. We also don't need more management activities for Wikipedians to do, taking them away from editing articles. It is possible through placeholders to allow rookie editors to easily accomplish it themselves and learn more about image adding in the process. User:DoubleBlue (Talk)17:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm... (1) This is not a significant management activity above and beyond checking for copyvios, which already happens. (2) If the image automatically replaces the placeholder under the current system, how are rookie editors "accomplishing it themselves" or "learning more about image adding"? Yes, they learn how to upload a file. But they don't learn how to place the image in an article under either the current system or my proposed solution. If you think we should be allowing them to accomplish it themselves -- and I agree -- then we would need to modify the current system OR modify my proposed system in the same way: provide more step-by-step instructions on how to do this. The downside is that more instructions make them less likely to upload an image in the first place or to do everything correctly. However, as far as rookie editors learning the ropes, I don't see what the difference is between the old system and my proposal.Northwesterner1 (talk) 17:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I will be getting into this when I finish summarising the history section but part of the background of the development of this system is usability studies that show the image adding process is very confusing for many first-timers. The "from-owner" placeholder system was designed to make this more simple and streamlined. The placeholder is not automatically replaced; the uploader is given the instruction to replace the "Replace this image.svg" text with the name of their newly uploaded image. User:DoubleBlue (Talk)17:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying this. I misunderstood the replacement process. Given the emerging consensus against the placeholders, which is not entirely based on aesthetic concerns, I think proponents of the system need to be willing to re-evaluate the entire system if we are going to be able to salvage any piece of it. Some may be satisfied by a different image used as a placeholder that would address some aesthetic concerns. I am not.Northwesterner1 (talk) 17:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I also think we should separate the two goals here: (1) Get more free content for Wikipedia, and (2) Bring more users into the Wikifamily by teaching them how to participate in the image upload system. The rationale for placeholders in this discussion centered almost exclusively around (#1). So my proposals are intended to address that. (#2) is also a worthy goal. However, there seems to be a strong majority opinion (if not yet consensus) against the current system which attempts to accomplish both goals at once. Can we find consensus for any system that accomplishes both goals? Time will tell. Should we also think about alternatives that accomplish (#1) or (#2) separately. I think, yes.Northwesterner1 (talk) 18:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
You are correct. The point of learning about adding images is definitely an aside to this discussion. The main point I wished to make is that it allows new users to easily add an image they own to an article. User:DoubleBlue (Talk)18:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
This seems like an interesting approach, but I'm concerned about cluttering the lead sentence in an article (strikes me as nearly as obtrusive as placing a fake "image"), and I'm not sure if it's possible to suppress a tag like this from printout? Also, I don't think this would work with the placeholder system. -Pete (talk) 18:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to agree with Pete that this would not look good in the opening sentence of an article, and it's too small to be noticed elsewhere. – User_talk:Jaksmata19:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree that it would clutter the lead paragraph but I also think it is illogical - a {{fact}} template applies to the preceding sentence/paragraph, which is what you expect from something in that position and format. 'Image needed' applies to the entire article. --Cherry blossom tree09:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Alternative solution: Find a better way to generate free images
The main argument in favour of placeholders is that they produce free images (or more specifically, they produce a certain class of free images that we struggle to obtain ourselves.) If someone could suggest a different way to get the same sort of free images, then the need for any placeholders at all would be significantly less. One way that has been suggested was to solicit images from the subjects themselves or their PR firms. Could we find a way to do this successfully and in reasonable numbers? Would this help solve the current issue? --Cherry blossom tree10:04, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Been tried. They tend to try and impose unacceptable conditions. PR agencies don't like loseing control.Geni13:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Geni, you are absolutely wrong. Some cases, maybe, but we are a young project and still refining the best way to approach this. This goes on all the time. See Darcy Burner, see the latest episode of Wikipedia Weekly (start listening at 30 minutes). I have personally been successful in soliciting images, and have seen numerous others do so. This article touches on the issue, as well. -Pete (talk) 18:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Where is that quote from? From the Darcy Burner image: "This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 License." -Pete (talk) 18:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I've also seen numerous examples where images were solicited by writing to Flickr users and asking them to put a CC license on a photo.Northwesterner1 (talk) 18:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
(ec)To Pete's comment about Flickr: That's true and great and I've done it myself but largely PR firms are not willing to have their works be free-use; I've tried that as well. Up until a few years ago, images for Wikipedia-only or for non-commercial use only were permitted but since that was outlawed (and now even stronger guidelines limiting fair-use) it has become necessary to seek (almost exclusively) user-owned photos. This, however, is slightly aside from the discussion at hand.
It will surprise a few, I'm sure, when I say I'm not really pro-placeholders; I just don't believe there are any significant, fact-based arguments against their use and I do like that they are, essentially, an [edit] button for people to easily add photos to the infobox. Is there another way to do that? Until there is, this seems helpful with no actual down-side. Tart-up the picture or make it text-only; fine. Outlaw it; that's of no benefit. DoubleBlue (Talk)19:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Peteforsyth that is the comment they uploaded it with so we have no idea of the validity of the CC claim.Geni18:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Geni, you're correct, the Darcy Burner image may require a little more work; I had not noticed that comment. Still, that's correctable; that specific, and perhaps temporary, point does not disprove mine. I'm sure the examples mentioned by Durova in the podcast -- one of which is a Featured Picture -- are better-vetted than that one. There are certainly numerous examples of outside organizations granting a free license at the request of Wikipedians; your outright dismissal is inaccurate, and serves only to inject misinformation into this discussion. -Pete (talk) 19:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
This section has gone beyond the scope of the centralized discussion which is about image placeholders. The terms of reference in the introduction at the top of the page state "Should the addition of this box be allowed? Does the placeholder system and graphic image need to be improved to satisfy policies and guidelines for inclusion? Is it appropriate to some kinds of biographies, but not to others?" . It doesn't include making technical recommendations for a new system. This stage should come after the closure of the discussion. --Kleinzach (talk) 00:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I think this falls within the scope. Better to keep discussion here than to open a new discussion somewhere else. In my view, the 66% majority favoring Proposal 1 (complete removal of placeholder images) constitutes a weak consensus. Some others do not think it constitutes any kind of consensus at all. Given the applicability of this issue to a large number of articles, I believe we need a strong consensus, which we do not yet have on Proposal 1. We do have it on Proposal 2. Further discussion may be useful in helping us reach a strong consensus on both points. This could happen in either direction. On the one hand, a revised placeholder may appease enough supporters of Proposal 1 that we could find consensus to keep the placeholder in its revised form. (I would argue that this would have to be a substantial revision, given the strong majority in favor of Proposal 1.) On the other hand, an alternative solution may appease enough opponents of Proposal 1 that we could find consensus to get rid of the placeholder entirely. (Such solutions include but are not limited to stub-like solutions, footnote-like solutions, talk-page template solutions, other article template solutions, or text-based solutions, e.g. something that looks like an infobox header but functions like a placeholder.) I think we should let this discussion go forward. However, I emphasize that if we cannot come up with a solution that has strong consensus, there is more support for scrapping the placeholders entirely than there is for keeping them in any form. I believe supporters of the placeholders need to lean a little farther toward the majority in the search for a consensus solution.Northwesterner1 (talk) 21:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Broadly, I agree with Northwesterner1. From the poll, it is clear that the status quo is unacceptable to many and we need to work to change things. The next step, started finally, is to have a discussion on how to meet those objections. DoubleBlue (Talk)22:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
The use of any kind of image placeholder in WP articles was overwhelmingly rejected during the centralized discussion which ended on 23 April. Over 50 people took part in that discussion. Their opinions must be the basis of the conclusions of this discussion. They can't be disempowered. This splinter debate was unannounced. Those taking part in it should not try to set aside the consensus that was established in the real discussion. Talking about 'weak' and 'strong' consensus is at best misleading. We know the opinions of editors. We asked them and they told us.
If you look at WP:PRACTICAL which refers to 'consensus' in larger discussions (i.e. not at the article level) it says this: "In situations with a deadline, a perfect compromise may not have been reached by all participants at the deadline. Nevertheless, a course of action should be chosen that is likely to satisfy the most persons . . . ." So there is no justification for overturning the results of the discussion and its proposals (only one of which was passed) or extending it indefinitely after an agreed deadline. --Kleinzach (talk) 23:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I disagree that the placeholders were "overwhelmingly rejected." I would say that they were "broadly rejected." This is an important difference. I stand by my framing of "weak consensus" and "strong consensus". However, if you believe those are misleading terms, then I have to say that I agree with the editors who believe we have found "no consensus" on Proposal 1. (Strong consensus does exist for Proposal 2.) I believe the "course of action likely to satisfy the most persons" is to move forward from the initial discussion as we are doing now in an attempt to either (a) revise the placeholder, per Proposal 2, or (b) replace it with an alternative system, per Proposal 1. I believe (b) is a better course of action, given the majority opinion against any image placeholder, but I am open to (a) if the revision is substantial enough that the revised placeholder becomes acceptable to many who supported Proposal 1.Northwesterner1 (talk) 00:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Placeholders were rejected by more than 2 to 1. That is fact. As you yourself wrote (to general agreement) the other proposals were 'void' as the result of Proposal 1 passing. So retaining the placeholders, with a small group of six or seven editors defying the centralized discussion, is not possible.
As for an alternative system to placeholders, that is of course perfectly possible, providing the results of the centralized discussion are respected, but it lies beyond its scope. In any case the discussion stage is over. Extending it (unannounced) to cover alternatives just turns this into more of a quagmire. (Re. "weak/strong consensus", I have tried to find these terms in WP policy but have so far found no references. Are you making this up or did you get this idea from somewhere?) --Kleinzach (talk) 00:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm making those terms up. As I said above, if you reject those terms, then the term you are faced with is "no consensus." WP:CONSENSUS and WP:PRACTICAL do not set a numerical threshold. Consensus on Wikipedia is what works, i.e., what people will abide by. I don't think we've yet reached a functional consensus yet. (Yes, I'm making that term up too.)Northwesterner1 (talk) 00:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Good. Then we agree that WP:CONSENSUS and WP:PRACTICAL are relevant here, though I don't follow the bit about 'no consensus'. ('No consensus' occurs when opinion is fairly evenly divided between two or more groups.) The problem with looking for a "functional consensus" (again is this your term?) is that the opinion stage of the discussion is over and everyone has gone home. Are you referring to the acquiescence of a group of three editors who, in one way or another, have been in denial of the whole process?--Kleinzach (talk) 01:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I have seen many proposals with only 66% supporting result in a verdict of "no consensus", especially when the momentum is in the other direction. (Of the last 20 votes, the split on Proposal 1 was 10 disagree, 9 agree, 1 neutral.) In addition, we have to consider the wider consensus of Wikipedia editors at large. Some would argue that a consensus for keeping placeholders exists simply by virtue of the fact that the placeholders are currently found on 50,000 articles. That means 50,000 "mini-decisions" were made by editors of various pages to keep the placeholders. (And, yes, in many cases editors made "mini-decisions" in the other direction.) We need a working, functional, inarguable consensus in order to make changes on the scale we are proposing. In my view, we are close to that consensus, but we have not achieved it yet. If further discussion will get us to such a consensus and can do so in a way that recognizes the opinions of those who have already participated in the centralized discussion then I think such discussion is fair. I don't plan on supporting any course of action that "overrules" the editors who voted on the closed proposals. I am willing to believe we can find a solution that respects the opinions of those editors who supported Proposal 1 and broadens that consensus to include opponents of Proposal 1. If we can't find such a solution, then, yes, I believe Proposal 1 should stand as is. However, we're not to that point yet. Let's let the process play itself out.Northwesterner1 (talk) 01:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
A 66% outcome is not considered "overwhelming" in a consensus-driven system. When only 50 of the tens of thousands? hundreds of thousands? of WP editors weigh in, there is a huge margin for error; besides, the applicability of policy must be taken into account, and must be given more weight than a mere headcount. That's a great basis for stating that there's "widespread dissatisfaction" with any placeholder system imagined by those people, but it is not a solid foundation for overruling any and all placeholder systems.
It may be advisable, at some point, to ask someone from the mediation cabal to step in to facilitate the discussion. My experience with that group has shown them to be highly capable of maintaining a neutral stance while facilitating discussion. -Pete (talk) 00:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I think we should ask a mediator to step in now. It seems clear that we have substantial disagreement about whether we have reached consensus on Proposal 1. Until we get that cleared up, future discussion is unlikely to be productive. Better to have a mediator step in now before the discussion becomes even more difficult to follow.Northwesterner1 (talk) 00:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Withdrawn suggestion
RESOLVED: withdrawn suggestion
In view of this (now substantial) section I suggest we reopen Question 8 and put it there. Afterwards we can re-summarize the section. We can keep the discussion open for a day or however long is thought necessary. Is that acceptable as a compromise? --Kleinzach (talk) 02:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC) Suggestion withdrawn following no response.--Kleinzach (talk) 23:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Are placeholders suitable for articles on historical biographies? I noticed the placeholder on William Henry Perkin, Jr. - would people here or elsewhere be able to generate a list where old pictures (ie. of dead, usually 19th century or early 20th century people) are needed, and in particular those where public domain pictures might exist (ie. order them by birth date or something). I have some experience of searching for old pictures like that, and would gladly tackle a task like that. It gets tricky though. For example, see here and here.
In general, the problem when looked at from a historical perspective, tends to divide into modern contemporary imagery (normally of people who are alive, so we need people to get out there and take photos), the borderline area between public domain by age and definitely still in copyright, and the public domain by age stuff. In the borderline area, where people are dead and no living photo is possible, there should be a "request for fair use pictures" tag for dead people where existing photos are still in copyright. Maybe that should be handled by a "request for people to write nicely to copyright holders and try and get at least one reasonable quality freely licensed picture" (I'm actually serious about that). Otherwise you get the situation at Wikipedia talk:NFC#Replaceable images of dead people. Compare Image:Gene roddenberry 1976.jpg (free license) and Image:Gene Roddenberry.jpg (non-free). Are we really stuck with the former picture for the next hundred years or so?
We can also link to historical archives or external sites. See what I did at Arthur William Ruckerpicture, William Carmichael McIntoshpicture and Harold Baily Dixonpicture. In such cases, would placeholders he useful? What would be more useful is trying to identify whether such images are public domain, and if not, when they will become public domain. Otherwise we are storing up a lot of un-needed work for ourselves when such images start to fall into the public domain. Carcharoth (talk) 13:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree that these are borderline cases. The "from-owner" placeholder system was designed, as I understand it, for use on living people biographies since that is the class of images for which fair-use was declared to be usually inappropriate since it would be "possible" for someone to take a free-use photo. 19th century and earlier biographies have little need for a placeholder of this type since found photos would almost certainly be public domain now. Those recent deaths are what's tricky. Sometimes a fair-use claim is reasonable to make; sometimes it seems possible to still find a free-use photo. Sometimes that fair-use photo is found but of poor quality but now supplants most claims of fair-use. It's really a weakness of the Foundation's recent decree that fair-use be as rare as possible and we must bear it or work to change it.
I did see a very useful chart once on determining public domain but can't recall where now. Perhaps on commons. The linking to external photos seems a useful and reasonable thing to do for our readers. I'm unconvinced, however, that a "from-owner" placeholder would be useful for someone like Arthur William Rucker since it seems unlikely that anyone owns a photo of him. A workgroup for finding historical PD photos seems like a good thing and, if there isn't one, one should be established. It would be a good place for people to develop those nice-letter campaigns of which you spoke. DoubleBlue (Talk)01:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm working on it whenever I run into a dead person's biography while browsing. I change iage to "X" so an AWB user does not re-tag. Guroadrunner (talk) 06:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
How about we work toward a consensus statement about "best practices" that would solve this conclusively? We should agree upon a consensus course of action and then draft a set of guidelines. In my view, the most promising solution is the one that emerged at the end of the KISS modified section above. It is a "text placeholder" NOT an "image placeholder," and I believe it would be acceptable to many of those who both supported and opposed Proposal 1. If we can agree on this solution and work out the technical bugs, then we would be able to draft a document recommending the removal of all current bio image placeholders and their replacement by this system. We would also be able to include in that document a recommendation about whether the new system should be used on dead bios.Northwesterner1 (talk) 17:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Common practise
Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Since guidance tends to advise on common or best practise, what is current common or best practise? It seems clear that there's a split in current practises, and no clear consensus against using placeholder images, and it's possible attempts to enforce such a position will prove fractious. Where does the consensus lie in using such placeholder images? Where are they appropriate? What are their purpose? Sorry if I am late to the party, but this place is rather large, and let's ear in mind that we have to reflect the consensus of all Wikipedians as expressed through editing practises, settling on those which best improve the encyclopedia in the long term. HidingT09:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I'd recommend reading the centralized discussion which ended on 23 April in which over 50 editors participated. Unfortunately we don't do personal tours, but it's laid out clearly enough. If you go to the top of this page, you will see a table of contents. Under this you will find the eight Questions and the three main Proposals. They have all been summarized to give the easiest possible entry into this question. IMO the key document is Proposal 1. This attracted the widest participation. Many editors were not interested in the more technical discussions. Hope this helps. Regards. --Kleinzach (talk) 10:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I believe the end result of this discussion will be a consensus statement about the common or best practices. I would advise Hiding and anyone else to just hold tight. Don't add any placeholders, don't delete any placeholders, don't invent any new placeholders. I think we are very close to being able to bring this discussion to a full and proper close, which should result in new guidelines endorsed by a strong consensus of editors.Northwesterner1 (talk) 17:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, you may have missed where I asked how you intend to reflect editorial practise. I read your polls and they were very well thought out and debated, but they don't actually reflect editorial practise. Do they? HidingT12:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
The text placeholder solution
Latest comment: 16 years ago105 comments18 people in discussion
For the last week, we have had two parallel conversations going on here on this page. One is a conversation about solutions that might replace the current placeholder system. Some of these solutions are modified versions of the image placeholder (e.g. Kiss solution). Other solutions are not placeholders in the technical sense but rather new methods to solicit free images (e.g. Stub template solution). The other conversation is about whether we should be discussing this at all, given that we closed the questions and proposals via an artificial but mutually agreed upon deadline.
Since I originally introduced the polls, I feel some obligation to help sort this out. First, we have to be clear that polling can be valuable when it is used as a supplement to a more general discussion. Polls are not evil, as Geni has stated. They help clarify where editors stand and provide a framework for solutions. But Geni and DoubleBlue are correct in saying that polls cannot be used to enact new guidelines or policies or enforce a majority will. (See WP:polling.) Second, it should be noted that the 66% support in favor of Proposal 1 (which I also supported) does not represent anything close to an "overwhelming" consensus by Wikipedia's standards. Third, it doesn't matter how many people support a given solution. It matters whether we can successfully implement this change on Wikipedia. We have a large task ahead of us. If we are going to convince the larger body of all Wikipedia editors that the current practice with regard to placeholders needs to be changed, then we need to have a solid working consensus behind the conclusion of this discussion. Hiding's comments on this page and the talk page are a reminder that we will need to put forward a consensus statement that convinces skeptical editors elsewhere on the project who may feel that they didn't have a chance to participate in this process. That's the only way to prevent edit wars on a massive scale.
I believe we must draft a guideline of "best practices" with regard to placeholders that represents a strong consensus of editors here. On the advice (but not the mandate) of the straw poll for Proposal 1, it is my opinion that this guideline should recommend the removal of the current image placeholder system and its replacement with something radically different. I'm not talking about changing the silhouette or the font. I would like to see a complete overhaul of the system, as would 2/3 of the editors here. However, I think our consensus statement will be more likely to be adopted on Wikipedia at large if we don't simply remove image placeholders but also replace them with a recommended alternative. Kleinzach, when you call for concluding this discussion without a recommended alternative, I believe you are making a tactical error; we will not be able to implement this change on Wikipedia without a stronger consensus than we have now. Northwesterner1 (talk) 17:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I personally encourage the development of alternatives, and I think few if any of those who took part in the centralized discussion which ended on April 23 were against this. However by including technical discussions beyond the terms of reference of the centralized discussion you have created a monster of a runaway horse (this page is now back up to about 200k), and a document which at present is almost impossible to read. I think you have also confused your own subjective feelings (elaborated at extraordinary length) with objective process. Also it isn't a matter of tactics. --Kleinzach (talk) 00:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
My "subjective feeling" (supported by WP:Consensus and WP:Polls) is that we do not have consensus behind Proposal 1. The current discussion falls within the scope of the centralized discussion and should not be moved elsewhere. Sorry for the reference to tactics. I believe you are also making a procedural error. If you'd like to discuss this, let's do it above or on the talk page, not here.Northwesterner1 (talk) 01:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
The most promising solution that has emerged is a "text placeholder." I believe it will be acceptable to those who both supported and opposed Proposal 1 if we can work out some technical problems. Below, I am copying some of the discussion about this placeholder. Let's now put our heads toward designing the best solution. I would ask those editors who believe that the discussion is somehow inappropriate to withhold their judgment until we have come up with a working solution and begun to draft the "best practices" guidelines. Then you can see whether the solution we have come up with meets with the spirit of Proposals 1 and 2, and meets with the approval of all editors who have contributed throughout this difficult process.Northwesterner1 (talk) 17:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
What is a text placeholder in this context? Lorem ipsum is the best known text placeholder. This is a text that occupies typographical space for a text in another language. Is this what you are referring to or are you using the wrong term? --Kleinzach (talk) 00:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Ha! That's not a 'placeholder'! It does not hold a space for something else. It's also not a 'text placeholder' because it does not hold space for a text. (You understand how the word 'text' modifies the word 'placeholder', right?) Your example is simply a piece of text containing a link. (IMO it looks good and would probably be generally acceptable, though that's beside the point.) --Kleinzach (talk) 02:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Great. As you apparently have no objection, I wish you had read the conversation before attacking it. Feel free to change the name to something else. It is being conceived as a "placeholder" because the text is accompanied by a blank .png image, which the user will replace with the new image, as well as replacing the text with a caption. Please read the discussion before dismissing it.Northwesterner1 (talk) 02:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
The following text evolved out of a discussion about the "Kiss Modified" proposal. Please do not respond directly here. Instead, respond in the sections that have been set up below to structure the discussion.
Origins of the idea
There may be some easier ways around this. Many (most?) infoboxes include a "caption" parameter. We could put a template in that caption and put a blank or acceptable placeholder image in the image parameter. It would, however, mean one extra step for the uploader to remove/change the caption. DoubleBlue (Talk)19:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Interesting - I see you have to have a blank image in order for the caption to show up. The image uploader would have to remove the blank image and replace the caption - not that it would be hard to clean up mistakes. – jaksmata19:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
It has the added benefit of being sufficiently different from the "image placeholders" polled under Proposal 1 that I feel we could adopt a solution like this while respecting the !votes of those who supported Proposals 1 and 2.Northwesterner1 (talk) 19:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Note: I modified Bob Simpson (football player) to eliminate the need for the image width parameter. (Did this by replacing the SVG image with the equivalent PNG image.) I suppose it's possible there are infoboxes that force a certain width unless explicitly overridden, but I'd think that should be dealt with by fixing the infobox. If these are not placed by automated process, it can be part of the instructions that articles not be left with a big hunk o' white space, if in fact such infoboxes exist. -Pete (talk) 20:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
p.s. I am hoping that this will put to rest, once and for all, the silly notion Genisock has advanced numerous times, that we are somehow unable to control the size of the image within an infobox. -Pete (talk) 20:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I never said that. However Imagewidth is not a valid argument in the majority of infoboxes (valid arguments in various infoboxes include image_size, imagesize, img_size, width, |150 about half require size to end in px about half don't). In any case your method would not allow the person to add an image to an article and rather falls apart with regards to thumbs. Then there is the thing on Francis Obikwelu.Genisock2 (talk) 20:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Genisock, I'm sorry but I'm not going to take your word about the "majority" of anything. Your dismissal of the possibility that free images can be successfully solicited from PR agencies, which is demonstrably false, makes me wary of your use generalization. If you want to give some examples of infoboxes where it wouldn't work, or places where thumbnails come into play, I'd look them over. By the "thing" on Francis Obikwelu, I assume you're talking about an infobox that's created by a series of templates, rather than a single box, yes? That does present a further challenge. I think there's a certain point at which we should say, "it's not our job to make our proposal work in every variation on Wikipedia." We should come up with general specs and parameters, and implementation plans to a reasonable extent, but I'd think a box like that one is beyond the scope of this discussion. -Pete (talk) 20:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
<outdent>I didn't dismiss it. It simply said that "They tend to try and impose unacceptable conditions" I never said always. Thumbnails exist Simai Abdulrahman Abdallah for example. As for what does and doesn't work try looking at the arguments documented on various infobox pages. Documentation of how to control image size isn't always as good as it should be mind mind.Genisock2 (talk) 21:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, then how about this adjustment to the Simai Abdulrahman Abdallah article? May be a little more "placeholderish" than Kleinzach likes, but I think it's a remarkable improvement over the silhouette. (An alternative would be do do something along the lines of the stub template where infoboxes don't exist.) -Pete (talk) 21:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
If an photo of Obikwelu is desired, an {{Infobox Person}} could be added to the top with the placeholder solution. I think the lack of standardisation of infoboxes is not a serious obstruction. Problems that arise can be corrected, case by case. DoubleBlue (Talk)20:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Looks good to me. Only, I'd suggest we use the PNG rather than the SVG, in the spirit if KISS; for infoboxes that don't require a width parameter, the PNG will be 1px without adding a parameter, while the SVG will take on its nominal size. Let's just instruct people to use the PNG, instead of "use the PNG in these cases, the SVG in these other cases." -Pete (talk) 21:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm fine with adding "[[Wikipedia:Upload|Upload a copyright-free image]]" to the captions in infoboxes, but to keep things consistent (in case of consensus-reached changes to the text or whatever), I think it should be contained in a template, such as {{Upload image}} (I don't really care what it's ends up being called). – jaksmata21:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I did consider this a while back but never got around to working out the bugs. It can work although it falls over under a couple of conditions. Thumbs are the big problem. The closest I was able to get to a universally working system was to use rather than a 1*1 image a 150px width*1px hight image. This makes no visable difference to infoboxes but solves the thumb issue rather neatly.Genisock2 (talk) 22:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
We seem to be moving towards a solution that's widely acceptable but there seem to be a few outstanding issues. Using wikitext (or a template) seems to make it more complicated for a user to replace the image. Is there anything we can do about this? Also, infoboxes all seem to behave slightly differently. Is it possible to automate a switch from the image-based system to a template-based system? There are probably other similar issues that I've missed. If we decide that this is an avenue worth pursuing then it might it be best to set up a more structured discussion to address such points. --Cherry blossom tree22:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
It's exciting to see that we may be making some progress here. I agree, we should move this discussion to a separate section where we can look at these issues with some rigor. My feeling is that the wikitext solution does make it more complicated for a user to replace the image, and we should take great care to make the instructions as simple as possible. However, there are plenty of back-up systems available to correct any mistakes that a new user might make. (Editors can watch the category of uploaded images, and of course there are also editors watching the articles themselves.) If our goal is to get more people involved with the encyclopedia and to get more free images, this solution gets us headed in that direction. As for the variance in infoboxes, my feeling is that we need to develop a set of guidelines for how infoboxes should be revised to accommodate this solution. The first step would be to automatically remove the currently existing placeholders (which have been deemed by a strong majority of the community to be unacceptable) from all articles. As we remove the placeholders, the edit summary could include a link back to new guidelines we develop, which would explain the reasons for removing the current image placeholders and offer the alternative wikitext system in their place. Editors of individual articles or series of articles using a common template would be responsible for updating their infoboxes to accommodate the new solution. We may be able to automate some of that process for the most common infoboxes, but probably not for all infoboxes. The remainder would be approached on a case-by-case basis wherever editors feel strongly enough that an image is needed that they undertake the work of updating the infobox. Other issues to discuss include whether we are recommending the removal of image placeholders from articles without an infobox and whether we are recommending their removal from bios of dead people. (I think yes in both cases.)Northwesterner1 (talk) 23:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
The existing placeholders stay untill you have completed at least a trail deployment of something that works better.Genisock2 (talk) 16:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Philosophically acceptable?
Is the infobox-based "text-placeholder" solution shown here consistent with existing Wikipedia guidelines and policies? Does it reflect the opinions of editors who have participated in this discussion, and especially those who "voted" on Proposals 1 and 2? Note: This is not a "vote" about whether we should adopt this solution.
Yes on each count. Most of the reasons for objections to the existing placeholder system have been addressed with this solution. – jaksmata19:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, and furthermore, it's a significant improvement to the article (over no system at all), in that it makes it more straightforward for a non-Wikipedian to upload an image for a specific article. I am very encouraged by this approach, and will try to contribute to overcoming any technical hurdles. -Pete (talk) 20:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
No - I arrived late to the discussion, but I'd prefer either nothing (or a talk page or WikiProject based system), or a full-blown placeholder image. The little itty bit of text there was hardly visible. I spent seconds looking for it. I suspect that there is no ideal solution, and rather than looking for one, we should let several systems operate (within reason) and see which one actually produces the best results (with not too much arguing over how to interpreet the results). Also, some editors might vote with their feet, and demonstrate that one system has more consensus on the ground, rather than in a discussion. But the use of bots and scripts might skew this a bit. Carcharoth (talk) 23:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I think it's pretty clear that the full-blown placeholder would produce better results (i.e. more images). But full-blown image placeholders were found to be incompatible with Wikipedia style by a significant majority here. "Best results" is not a suitable metric if the method itself is not acceptable to Wikipedia editors.Northwesterner1 (talk) 00:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
No Though much smaller it is still the first thing in the infobox that one will read. In my opinion the idea that this will bring in a flood, or even a trickle, of free images that will meet Wikipedia's criteria is a pipedream (I apologize if this is offensive to anyone.) As I pointed out above because of this on many/most pages any message in the infobox will be there in perpetuity. As with Carcharoth I prefer the talk page or WikiProject based system like the Film Project uses. MarnetteD | Talk00:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually it has been shown to work already. The OTRS photo submission queue is now getting a good 5 emails/day on average -- not all of them are properly licensed, but the response is there. howcheng {chat}17:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I think not. Use of jargon like that is not good. There original stressed ownership for a reason. this would be closer but I'm not sure "photographed" is actualy legit english.Genisock2 (talk) 00:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Just to clarify, your objection is to the language "Upload a copyright-free image," rather than to the architecture of the solution itself, correct?Northwesterner1 (talk) 00:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
The architecture has multiple flaws. Most obvious is the problem of hanging captions. Other problems would be the issues it would cause for certain uses in tables and the increased overhead for putting the thing it place. The lack of an ability to centeraly control the text is another problem. On the other hand it may be possible to fix these as part of a limited deployment so they are not a reason to stop a limited trial. The wording however is.Genisock2 (talk) 00:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Please help us keep on track. Your philosophical objection is to the language "Upload a copyright-free image," correct? (Your technical concerns can be addressed below.) Northwesterner1 (talk) 00:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Geni, I'm done assuming good faith. You are being purposefully disruptive. The title of this question is "Philosophically acceptable?" It is an attempt to gauge whether editors believe that the basic idea of an infobox-based text-placeholder is consistent with Wikipedia style. Please take other objections elsewhere. If you would rather change the title to something that doesn't reference philosophy but still gets the point across, be my guest.Northwesterner1 (talk) 01:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I support the statement above by Northwesterner. Genisock, you have consistently avoided opportunities to move discussion forward, most often by objecting to a small point in a proposal rather than addressing its larger goal and presenting tweaks that will make it work. It's difficult to imagine what your goal is in this discussion, but I, like Northwesterner, am no longer of the view that you want to participate in developing a workable solution to the issues under discussion. -Pete (talk) 02:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Your above statement is inconstant with your opening statement in this section. Could you please clarify what it is you are actually asking? You see the big problem is "This is an attempt to gauge whether there is support for exploring this further". Your questions do not directly address this point and commit the fallacy of the excluded middle.Genisock2 (talk) 01:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
The caption would have to be done by a template making the system centrally-controlled, immediately changeable, and allowing for easy application of metadata class to the text. Having contributors omit removing/changing the caption is not a huge issue, in my opinion. So it still says "Upload a free image" or whatever, so what? Maybe someone will upload another free-use image. There are far more ugly changes made by new contributors unfamiliar with wikisyntax than that and editors watching simply correct it. DoubleBlue (Talk)04:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Hopefuly we will find out. As I said I think we are in a position to begin a trial once we have fixed the wording.Genisock2 (talk) 17:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes. The Wiki spirit of encouraging and welcoming contributors is completely in-line with this idea of putting an "add button" for infobox images. The objectors to the former system were that it was large and ugly and suggested that small, unobtrusive solutions like tags would be better. This system is even smaller and unobtrusive than that. Another concern (though unfounded) was that the old placeholders violated WP:SELF. This solution also does not violate SELF and, with the metadata or dummy class added to the caption template, will not display in printable version. DoubleBlue (Talk)04:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
No. It's an improvement aesthetically on the previous version, but it still implies that an image is required, which many in the previous discussion opposed, and it still occupies space at the top of the article in mainspace, which many were strongly opposed to. Also, as has been pointed out below, it requires an infobox, which many are fundamentally opposed to. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
There is an option below to recommend removal of placeholders when there is no infobox. Editors who are fundamentally opposed to an infobox do not need one shoved down their throats. They just do without the text-placeholder. Northwesterner1 (talk) 17:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Thumbnails are not infoboxes. In any case the suggestion that infoboxes can be shoved down editors throats is a WP:OWN violation.Genisock2 (talk) 17:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
If you don't like the wording, why not help us with it? We haven't quite figured it out yet. I would argue that it should only be used in infoboxes but it's not a requirement to use it all. DoubleBlue (Talk)17:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Closest would be User:Geni/test.17:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes and no. Yes in that I am willing to compromise in order to keep the call to action on the page, no in that I would still prefer something more eye-catching. howcheng {chat}17:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Technical Problems
What technical problems do we have in adapting this system to various infoboxes. How can we solve them?
Using AWB to undo the automated additions of placeholders
Let's explore the possibility of using AWB to undo the automated additions of the image placeholders.
(Background: the AWB program was used to add the placeholders to somewhere around 50,000 articles; the fact that the placeholders are controversial, which has come to light during the present discussion, means that such additions are not permissible. Of course, this is not to say the additions weren't well-intentioned and reasonable at the time they were made.)
Is there anyone involved in this discussion who's familiar with AWB? Or anyone we should look to draw in who could help in this area? For my part, I just downloaded AWB for the first time, and am looking into it. I have some familiarity with Regular expressions, which may be helpful, but I'm certainly no expert.
Yes for both questions. The instructions will need to say that the image to be replaced will be No_image.PNG, the caption needs to be changed to something descriptive instead of the existing upload link, and it will have to mention that the image size might need to be specified/modified when adding to the page. This would break "Step 4.Add your image to the article." on the upload page into 3 parts. – jaksmata19:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
We could also add instructions to provide a help option for new users who are confused. If they can't figure out how to place the image in the article, they could just place some kind of help template on the discussion page of the uploaded image, which would alert editors that some assistance is needed.Northwesterner1 (talk) 20:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Basically yes. The instructions and special upload page will need to reflect the wording we choose for the caption template. If it's along the lines of the original "Do you own one?" then the current system simply needs an update on instructions for placement since the special upload page is designed for user-owned photos. If it's along the lines of requesting a free-use image (copyright-free, while perhaps easy phrasing, is not technically correct; free-use photos are copyrighted with free-use provisions) then a more general upload page like Wikipedia:Upload will be necessary. DoubleBlue (Talk)04:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
You could use it yes. Might be worth setting up a parrel system mind would be an opportunity to institute various changes and things that are missing from the existing system.Genisock2 (talk) 19:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Implementation
If we find this system to be an acceptable alternative to the current image placeholders, how would we implement this change? Can we automate part of the process? Should we simply delete the current placeholders and leave the burden of responsibility on other editors to implement the text-placeholder solution if they so choose?
Someone with a bot could conceivably do this more easily than manual editing, but I don't know for sure. No, I don't think it would be ok to just delete all the existing placeholders indiscriminately and say "start over from scratch." In that case, we'd be no better than those who indiscriminately added them using tools/bots. If any automatic process takes place, it should replace the existing placeholders only. Articles can then continue to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis for appropriateness of placeholders. – jaksmata19:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I disagree that we wouldn't be any better than the editors who indiscriminately added the placeholders with tools/bots. If we agreed to do so, we would be doing so with the strong consensus of this centralized discussion backing us up. I believe we should automate whatever we can automate in replacing existing placeholders with the text-placeholder system. But for those articles where automatic replacement is not practical, we should automatically delete the current placeholders. That is the quickest and easiest way to bring all articles into compliance with our new guidelines. Anyone who objects to that action would have a simple remedy: manually add the new text-placeholder system.Northwesterner1 (talk) 19:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I see your point (about consensus). I still think we should replace rather than delete existing placeholders, making exceptions as appropriate. I'm under the impression that most of the existing placeholders are "appropriate", but that there are a few exceptions for non-living people, minors, victims of crime, etc., where it would be better to delete them. A bot operator would have to be careful, but again, this is not an area I'm sure about. – jaksmata20:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I believe that we're on solid ground to delete all versions of the placeholder that were added using AWB, given that the rules governing use of AWB prohibit doing anything controversial with it. Doing anything fancier than simply reversing the AWB edit seems questionable. However, I think it's a good idea to have this system fully fleshed out and ready for deployment before we do a mass-reversion. (I think this is in line with what Genisock said at the end of the initial discussion on the "modified KISS" system.) We cannot say with total confidence that our new system is uncontroversial, so we need to abide by thw AWB rule as well. -Pete (talk) 20:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I like Pete's approach. It seems fair that we mass-revert the AWB edit rather than having to manually replace 50,000 images. We can manually update the rest. I also agree that we need to have a fully operating system in place before doing the mass-reversion, including a page we can link to (either this page or a new guidelines page) that clearly explains the new system and the rationale behind it.Northwesterner1 (talk) 20:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
We can conclude with a consensus of an appropriate placeholder style that would require an extra-ordinary rationale or re-opening of debate to subvert. I think it is unnecessary to police this. This discussion can conclude with a consensus judgement and removals of the old system and/or implementation of the new system can be rationalised by linking to our conclusion on an individual basis. There is no policy against the old system and I doubt there ever can be. There is simply nothing wrong, policy-wise, with putting a placeholder image on an article. If editors disagreed with the addition of the old placeholder image on any individual article, they should have already removed it anyway. If individual editors see a good in taking on a project of replacing the old placeholders with a new solution, then good on them but it does not need to be part of our conclusion. DoubleBlue (Talk)04:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
The "magic parameter" implementation
Already a couple of weeks ago, I wrote up my suggestion for one possible way to implement "textual placeholders" at Wikipedia talk:Upload placeholder images#Salvaging the backend. As I was busy with other things and basically forgot about this issue, I didn't get around to properly soliciting comments on it at the time, so it remained mostly unseen on an obscure talk page. However, as it seems the consensus here has converged to something quite similar to what I had proposed, I figured I ought to bring it to the attention of the people here and see what you think.
The one major difference in my suggestion, versus what seems to have been suggested here, is (besides the fancy mockups) the use of a "magic parameter" (image = NO_FREE_IMAGE) to enable the upload links. Thus, I'd like to see what people here think about this idea. It would require somewhat more effort to implement than simply using a blank image and a link in the caption, but the advantage would be that we could keep the instructions very simple: just "edit the page and replace 'NO_FREE_IMAGE' with the name of the image you uploaded."
Of course, feel free to comment on the other aspects too. I think it might be best to keep the discussion here (unless someone objects?), and I'll make a note to that effect at the page linked to above. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 09:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
If an article has no infobox...
Do we recommend the complete removal of all placeholders from articles that do not have infoboxes or that do not have compatible infoboxes?
I think yes. Not every living bio article needs a text-placeholder. Editors of individual articles should be responsible for adding infoboxes and/or revising infobox syntax to accommodate the text placeholder.Northwesterner1 (talk) 20:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Infoboxes are of no significance one way or another although in some cases infoboxes with unusual code setups will be such a pain that people tend to skip them.Genisock2 (talk) 20:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand the first part of your response. The text-placeholder system we're looking at is designed to work through the caption value of infobox templates. What do you mean by infoboxes are of no significance one way or another?Northwesterner1 (talk) 20:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I understand it's possible. I think it's not advisable (as I believe that thumb-based placeholders outside infoboxes would be obtrusive). Hence my "yes" comment recommending complete removal outside infoboxes. If you think we should use thumb-based placeholders, I suggest starting a new bullet point with some reasons why.Northwesterner1 (talk) 00:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I think putting a placeholder directly on an article page is rather silly and there is no need to do it that way. Just adding a simple {{Infobox Person}} with the placeholder solution will do a much better job. DoubleBlue (Talk)03:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
This is a perfect example of the creeping effects against which I cautioned immediately below. First we decide that we're going to have placeholders on articles. Then the question arises of what to do about articles that don't have infoboxes. The answer? Why, we need to add infoboxes to the articles that don't have them! Never mind that many editors in certain classes of article vehemently oppose infoboxes and have fought a long, hard consensus process to get rid of them. No, I still say that we should not have placeholders of any kind on articles that do not already have infoboxes, and we have no business shoving infoboxes down the throats of groups of editors who, for quite justifiable reasons, don't want them, just to make life easier for those who want to put placeholders on articles. If inconsistent rules for using placeholders are a problem, we should be looking at some solution other than placeholders, as I suggested below and agreed above (and as the initial responses to the original propositions would suggest we should be doing). Drhoehl (talk) 05:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Joe Blow
Upload a free-use image
In what way is such an infobox an affront? What possible objections can there be? It is better than a thumb. The same rules apply nonetheless. If it is inappropriate for any particular article, it isn't placed and like anything, can be removed. DoubleBlue (Talk)05:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
If I could gently suggest...Drhoehl and DoubleBlue, I think you're both overthinking this a little bit. The big problem, initially, was that the placeholder was systematically added with AWB, even though AWB is not supposed to be used for controversial edits. I submit that we are not going to repeat that mistake here. Anything we come up with will potentially controversial; hence, we will not shove it down Wikipedia's throat with AWB.
So, the question of what to do with articles that lack infoboxes will be left to individual editors, as they look at individual articles. We can recommend that the placeholder not be added to articles that lack infoboxes, unless an infobox added...but ultimately, a "recommendation" is all it is.
The decision will be up to individual Wikipedia editors looking at individual articles, with some background thoughts and resources available for the exploration of any disputes that may arise...which is as it should be. It's the WikiWay! -Pete (talk) 05:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, I agree with this being an article by article basis and my initial suggestion above was, simply, there is never any need to add a placeholder without an infobox. I do think you are being unfair to say the the use of AWB to initially add the placeholders was wrong. It was an entirely good faith attempt to broaden the use of placeholders that had been in place over a year and seen to be beneficial to the project. DoubleBlue (Talk)05:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh.
Duh.
I think I see.
I think it was the wrong decision, but I don't doubt for a second it was done in good faith. If I had doubts about that..I guess maybe I did right at first, but not any more. But I've probably sounded like I do. So, I'm sorry for that. I definitely think this was all done out of a desire to build a better encyclopedia. -Pete (talk) 06:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I plead not guilty to overthinking. I expressed concern that "preserving placeholders in a more palatable form" could morph into "add infoboxes where they do not appear"--which, of course, is just what DoubleBlue subsequently suggested, and when apprised that doing so contradicts another group's consensus, the reaction was not to respect it but to dismiss it out of hand as "irrational." Sorry, but that just won't do. If you insist on a default of adding some form of placeholder, sometimes there is a need to insert it without an accompanying infobox, unless you intend to disregard consensus in certain communities against infoboxes; "case by case" or AWB matters not in that regard. I would suggest that DoubleBlue's instinct to add an infobox would not be unique among those who make it their mission to add placeholders to articles and therefore that the latter course is likely to occur all too frequently under a "placeholder default" paradigm. Drhoehl (talk) 22:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I urge you to read exactly what I said with less apprehension on my intentions and I will try to clarify my intent: "putting a placeholder directly on an article page is rather silly and there is no need to do it that way": I was trying to say never add placeholders outside infoboxes; "adding a simple {{Infobox Person}} with the placeholder solution will do a much better job": if a placeholder is seen as important, then a basic infobox is actually a slightly better solution than a thumb. I was not advocating for any infobox or placeholder parade, just trying to justify that placeholders never need appear outside infoboxes. Your comments inflated my justification to ridiculous extremes that I was nowhere near. DoubleBlue (Talk)23:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree that we should not insert placeholders into articles lacking infoboxes and should delete any already appearing in such. Moreover, this question raises another issue worthy of mention: for reasons that in some cases remain somewhat contentious, editors regularly contributing in some categories of biographies, such as classical performing musicians and composers, have taken a stand against including infoboxes in their articles. Therefore, we must take care to do nothing here that would appear to reopen that debate or to overrule or undercut the perhaps delicate consensus opposing infoboxes in those contexts. I didn't notice the original debate here dwelling on infoboxes, but I've noticed them coming progressively to the fore ever since the posting of the summaries. Hence, my concern. Although not germane to the discussion of "what should a revised template look like," please further note that a textual template below the article as proposed elsewhere, rather than a placeholder, would avoid any such problem and would be universally applicable regardless of an article's inclusion of an infobox. Drhoehl (talk) 21:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Right, and I support that proposal (but not this one), including your excellent proposed language for the template, for the reason I just outlined and others that I have already advanced. I simply didn't want to go into too much detail extraneous to the topic of this subsection in noting a potential pitfall of the approach presently under discussion. Drhoehl (talk) 22:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I think your note is useful here. As for supporting the stub template approach rather than this one, I think the best way to proceed is to comment in that section. If there seems to be enough support for that approach, we could flesh it out more and elevate it under a new header (as I've done for this proposal) to see which has more support. Northwesterner1 (talk) 22:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Dead person bios
Do we recommend the use of text-placeholders on dead person bios? If so, would it need to be a separate system to allow for non-free images?
No. Supporters of the placeholders have said that they were only designed to be used on living person bios, but I have found many placeholders on dead person bios. There are two problems with this. First, fair-use images may be appropriate on these articles in some cases, and the current placeholders (as well as the revised text-placeholders under discussion) are designed for free images. Second, images may be unavailable and will never become available for historical figures. Per the discussion above, #Placeholders on historical biographies, I believe placeholders should be removed from all biographies of dead persons.Northwesterner1 (talk) 22:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
It would be possible to design a placeholder to help with the uploading of "fair use" images. I don't believe it would be desirable to do so.Genisock2 (talk) 00:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
It is not so useful to have a placeholder for bios of deceased people. A fair-use rationale is far more likely to be accepted for bios of deceased people. Thus, it is either easier to get one and people should take the time it would take to put on a placeholder and find one instead or it is difficult to find one and making it easier to add one is not useful. DoubleBlue (Talk)03:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I think a distinction should be made articles about recently deceased people (for which such an appeal may be useful) and articles about historical people (for which it is silly). Mangostar (talk) 11:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I can give you an example. I posted a placeholder on Philip Jones Griffiths as soon as I read the news of his passing away in order to take advantage of the traffic spike and, sure enough, someone came forward with a picture. It was from a single-use account user who was presumably led here through a search engine. The contributor has disappeared. Had I not used the placeholder to guide this person, the article would probably still be bare. --Adoniscik(t, c)21:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Do we recommend the use of text-placeholders on articles that are not biographies? Do we recommend the removal of other image placeholders (for example blank music albums) from articles that are not biographies? Or are our conclusions restricted to biography articles only?
I'm going to continue to oppose expansion of this system to everywhere on Wikipedia. Although I still think that images are important, I don't think having an image solicitation on every article is the way to go. Also, nobody is complaining about the blank music album cover placeholders, so I say leave them as-is. Besides, copyrighted album covers are a completely different issue - they are still allowed under fair-use guidelines, and are so easy to replace with actual images found on google. – jaksmata19:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually for the most part they are not allowed under our fair use guidelines but no one feels like dealing with the problem.Genisock2 (talk) 00:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree. The text-placeholders should be used only on living bio articles that are currently using the silhouette placeholders. They may be added to other living bio articles on a case-by-case basis, but this addition should not be the default. Our recommendations should not apply to any other area of Wikipedia.Northwesterner1 (talk) 20:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
This discussion has been focused on living bio articles and the system that was developed for them. Image placeholders have been long used in other ways on Wikipedia and they should continue to argue for or against on an article by article basis. DoubleBlue (Talk)03:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
One of the things that pushed the issue of placeholders into prominence was their mass-deployment, to over 50,000 articles I believe, using AWB (a tool for doing repetitive edits to Wikipedia.)
There are rules concerning AWB's use, and one of them is that it should not be used to make controversial edits. Although the people who used AWB for this purpose certainly had good intentions, our discussion has made it clear that the placement of the image placeholder is definitely controversial. (Even though nobody could really knew that before deployment.)
I suggested above that all placeholders that were added with AWB be removed (if it's technically feasible.) However, since we seem to be on the path to developing a more palatable alternative system, I also suggested that we hold off on any mass-reversion until we have a complete system to recommend as a replacement. (Note: recommend, not roll out automatically.)
I agree and will just underline that the AWB addition would not have been foreseen to be controversial since placeholders have been in place for many years and this particular one for over a year. Now, it can be seen as controversial and should not be done that way in the future. Upon reaching a consensus here, we will have a consensus recommendation. DoubleBlue (Talk)18:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Technicaly doable although that would be in itself an abuse of AWB and I see no reason to follow this course of action.Genisock2 (talk) 21:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Links to all subpages removed
Latest comment: 16 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion
Resolved; subpages are linked in introduction and archive
DoubleBlue has 'archived' the centralized discussion here (including the introduction, procedural notes and all the summaries).
All the links to the discussions have been broken and now appear in red in the 'archive'.
Here they are restored so they can read by anyone who wants to access them:
I hope this was a mistake by DoubleBlue however I note that on 26 April, three days after the centralized discussion had ended that he wrote here "We have not yet had discussions. . . . Discussion, in fact, was deliberately inhibited and relegated to side comments when people tried to discuss. The focus was clearly on yes/no responses. . ." Was that the motivation for archiving the discussion? To put it out of sight?
I don't know whether this was deliberate vandalism or what - though it would be difficult not to notice all the red text - but I think we need an explanation. --Kleinzach (talk) 08:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
DoubleBlue's motivation for archiving the prior discussion is on the talk page, as noted in the edit summary. It is an attempt to deal with the unwieldy page length and focus attention on current collaborations. One could reasonably disagree with the section he chose to move, but he does have support for it on the talk page. Accusing DoubleBlue of breaking the links on purpose shows a striking lack of good faith. (Of course, they should definitely be fixed on the archived page.)Northwesterner1 (talk) 08:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Hmm. No accusation - it was a question. I wrote: "I hope this was a mistake . . . I don't know etc. . . ." . Was there any consultation before the page was moved? If so, for how long? Also was it appropriate for a prominent objector to Proposal 1 (which recommended placeholder image removal), on record for denying that discussions had taken place, to take it upon himself to remove the discussions from the main page set up specifically to contain them? --Kleinzach (talk) 09:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Motivation was explained in edit summary and talk page. This discussion about the page rather than about placeholders should be on talk and I will continue my response there. DoubleBlue (Talk)17:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Done. [1]-Pete (talk) 09:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
