Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Image placeholders

Keep it civil. Guroadrunner (talk) 13:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Wow. Slow down. I don't agree with the removal of placeholder images, and you can't use a poll of 53 people to create a global consensus for Wikipedia. Hiding T 10:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Hmmm... What could we use to create a global consensus for Wikipedia? Perhaps a two-week discussion process that goes step by step logically through arguments about the placeholders, a discussion that is advertised at WP:CENT, WP:RFC, signpost, the talk pages of the images in question, and numerous wikiprojects; and that is now proceeding by a properly careful slow and procedural method to summarize all arguments and continue discussion, rather than a simple up-or-down vote. Oh, wait, we're doing that! I guess you're suggesting that a better route for building global consensus for Wikipedia would be for a small number of editors to use semi-automated tools to add image placeholders to 50,000 articles, despite significant opposition in various corners, without ever discussing it at WP:RFC or WP:MOS or other appropriate locations.Northwesterner1 (talk) 17:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

This was a large vote by WP standards and is as good a way of judging consensus as anythign else I can think of.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

There may be a misunderstanding here. A perfect consensus of 53 people (or whatever the number is) is impossible and also not required. We need a 'rough consensus' which means as many people as possible - but not everybody. --Kleinzach (talk) 00:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

A misunderstanding? I'm not sure. Differing interpretations, yes. But WP:CONSENSUS does not state that 66% is a win. (It also doesn't deny that 66% is a win.)

It's my view that more discussion is essential to determine the best way forward. It's becoming clear to me that the early outright dismissal of the possibility of making a smaller image (clearly shown to be incorrect by the KISS proposal) and of some other technical options has damaged our ability to pursue a mutually acceptable course of action. -Pete (talk) 00:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The way forward

Bringing this talk from the discussion page: At 02:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC), Kleinzach stated: 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.

We have not yet had discussions. We had a poll that showed the opinions of various parties. Discussion, in fact, was deliberately inhibited and relegated to side comments when people tried to discuss. The focus was clearly on yes/no responses. Now we need to discuss and develop a consensus on the way forward. That will call on parties to take in account the result of the polls and collaborate to alleviate concerns on both sides until we reach a consensus that is acceptable. DoubleBlue (Talk) 02:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, we've had over two weeks of discussions and there were no more arguments being raised that hadn't already been brought up. To say that discussion was deliberately inhibited seems a strong accusation. What burning issues did people want to bring up that hadn't already been? Should we bring in administrators who were unaffiliated with the discussion to help sort out consensus (a la AfD)? -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 18:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

There were no discussions toward consensus, there were only opinions - a poll. I agree that the opinions portion of this has concluded but the real point of this is to move forward, using those opinions as a starting point, to form a consensus on the use of image placeholders. Back and forth discussion, collaboration, and compromise is the Wiki way; not votes. DoubleBlue (Talk) 18:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I keep hearing about this evil "poll" as if the proposals were the only component of the discussion. There were also substantive discussions point-by-point on arguments for and against the placeholders. All editors were consistently invited to add new questions or sections to that discussion. The proposals supplemented the broader discussion and provided a framework for action, but they did not replace or supersede the broader discussion. When the conversation ended, I did not have the sense that anyone felt there were aspects of the issue that had not yet been addressed, and if they did feel that way, why didn't they add new sections to the discussion?Northwesterner1 (talk) 18:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

***Centralized discussions take place on the main page - not on the talk page***

Centralized discussions take place on the main page - not on a Talk page. Moving conversations off the main page for tactical reasons is unacceptable. --Kleinzach (talk) 15:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The discussion is about image placeholders; the comments you are making are about the discussion. Discussion about the discussion belong on talk. Can you seriously argue those latest comments are about the KISS solution? They are not; they are about what the page is for. Discussions about a page are done on the associated talk page. Disrupting a developing solution for tactical reasons is unacceptable. DoubleBlue (Talk) 16:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I think DoubleBlue's preferred approach is the one more in line with WP convention. Discussion about the subject matter of the main page nearly always takes place on the talk page. Kleinzach, you have at various times sought input into how to structure the discussion; this seems like the most sensible one that has come along. Do you have a reason for believing that DoubleBlue's suggestion is made for tactical reasons (i.e., in bad faith)? I'm unconvinced. -Pete (talk) 16:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

DoubleBlue attempted to remove objections from the place where they were made - in the centralized discussion on the main page - to a hitherto unused Talk page - how could this not be tactical? I am also surprised you refer to a 'WP Convention'. I've never heard of this and I see you give no reference for it. On 21 April you wrote: "Yes, I will support April 23 [closing date]" Why are you now carrying on the discussion with a splinter group of 4 or 5 editors, when the 50-odd participants have been told that the discussion has finished? --Kleinzach (talk) 23:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Either show where I have ever removed anything from the page or withdraw that allegation.

I would be shocked that an editor of nearly 2½ years did not know that discussions about a page go on the talk page.

My comment from 21 April still stands: "I agree now that it may be nearing time to draw this portion of the discussion to a close. I really think the next thing to do is to summarise the concerns and work toward means to address those concerns and leave most sides satisfied."[1] DoubleBlue (Talk) 04:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Please read what I actually wrote above. You seem to be jumping to some unwarranted conclusions. For my part, I'm surprised you don't seem to have noticed the difference between an article and a special discussion page. --Kleinzach (talk) 00:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm wondering if we should move the "Structure of the discussion" section on the main page to this talk page or to a separate page. The centralized discussion is still very hard for newcomers to digest, and partly that is because all the procedural meta-discussion at the top (structure, participation, etc.). It would be better if newcomers could skip past the procedural stuff and get to the questions, proposals, and "moving forward" section. I see several options:

• Leave the "Structure of the discussion" where it is.
• Summarize the structure of the discussion, as we did with the questions and proposals, and move it to an archived page.
• Move it to this talk page with a note about the move.
• Hide parts of it using the hide template. (I've already done a little of this, but we could do more.)

Thoughts?

Northwesterner1 (talk) 19:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. We should have put all "meta-discussion" on the talk page to begin with but, at first, it seemed harmless. Now it does seem to contribute to make a introductory wall of text that is overpowering to get through. I agree with the portions you collapsed with the hide template and sections agreed to be concluded could all be done this way.

I think the "Structure of the discussion" section is largely regarding processes prior to where we are now and, thus, concluded and could be collapsed as well or archived or moved to talk. The current discussion about how this should proceed should be in one place and, I would argue, the appropriate place is on talk. It would be nice if the current main page was reserved for easily-accessible current collaborations on reaching a consensual solution. DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree with DoubleBlue. Esp. that it initailly occurred because it seemed harmless -- not out of any intent to mess up the process. But it is something that can be easily corrected now, by moving the "meta" to the talk page. -Pete (talk) 23:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Current situation

Can someone briefly outline the current situation for me, I'm confused. Someone is removing a lot of placeholder images based on their personal preferences, and linking here. I don't tend to edit war, but until I understand the situation it's hard to make sense of what is happening. Do we all agree with Wikipedia:Consensus? Hiding T 19:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

See the proposals on the main page. Some people think we have achieved consensus on Proposal 1: Placeholder images should not be used at all on the main page of articles (66% approved). Others think we have not yet achieved consensus on that, but we have achieved consensus on Proposal 2: If placeholder images are retained, they should be modified in appearance. We are currently trying to sort out the situation. In my view -- and I am an opponent of the placeholders -- no one should take any action yet, and you should ask the editor to hold until we have achieved a rock-solid consensus. Others may disagree.Northwesterner1 (talk) 19:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

How do people believe consensus has been achieved? Hiding T 20:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Consensus on #2 is obvious (22 agree, 1 disagree, 4 neutral). As for #1, I would say only that we don't yet have consensus about whether we have consensus. That's the brief outline of the current situation. If you want more depth than that, I'd suggest reading through the discussion. See also the response to your first point at the top of this page. Northwesterner1 (talk) 20:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. There was a sort of agreement to hold off the mass adding or removal of placeholders until the conclusion of this discussion. Individual inappropriate uses of the placeholder should, of course, be removed but with an appropriate rationale; not linking to this ongoing discussion. DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I only ask because in a separate venue amongst a smaller set of people the unanimous opinion was to use them. How would that affect the consensus? Hiding T 12:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Hiding -- I don't know if any of us can offer a definitive answer to that, but I suspect we'd all be interested in seeing that discussion. Can you post a link? -Pete (talk) 14:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not so much a discussion as three members of a WikiProject deciding to create another placeholder image. But had the three of us been aware of this discussion, we would have at the very least commented. So I don't know if the poll sets anything in stone, since it hasn't tracked all opinion. Hiding T 09:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Archiving

To help with working toward our consensus solution, I think we need to archive all the previous discussion with a nice big link at the top. The main page should be for on-going discussions. The giant wall of text at the top dissuades and distracts from the work we need to do now. DoubleBlue (Talk) 04:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this but I think we would need a short summary along with the link to the archive. It doesn't need to take sides in any way. It just needs to explain how we've reached the current point in our discussions. It should include a mention of the earlier questions and proposals, as well as a statement about the current lack of agreement about whether we've achieved consensus on Proposal 1. I believe such a statement is possible; however, we would need Kleinzach's support and participation in writing this statement, and I'm not sure he believes that is the proper approach.Northwesterner1 (talk) 04:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've done it. I think it is vital to moving forward. Please make alterations as you see fit to improve the intro. DoubleBlue (Talk) 05:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't sure what to think, until I saw it. I like the fresh perspective, and the opportunity to turn down the volume on some of the earlier stuff. I don't see a compelling reason to summarize the summaries; they're available to anyone that needs them. -Pete (talk) 05:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I messed up the subpage links. I didn't notice that they had been short-cut linked (I always use full page titles and it didn't occur to me). "I don't know whether this was deliberate vandalism or what - though it would be difficult not to notice all the red text". Deliberate vandalism? That is a rather strong and ridiculous accusation. It was, indeed difficult to notice the red links; they were several page scrolls down. Thanks to Pete for taking the initiative to correct them. I have taken all the uncivil comments I can take from Kleinzach without further action. DoubleBlue (Talk) 17:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Conclusion of initial discussion

I'm thinking we can conclude that there was a consensus that the Replace this image male and female images should not be used on article pages. I am going to try to re-word the introduction to that effect.

We can then continue work on ways to use the "from-owner" simplified upload method in ways that honour that consensus. I believe the text solution has much potential and should not be archived till discussions have completed. DoubleBlue (Talk) 23:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

There was no such consensus.Genisock2 (talk) 17:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

As someone who favoured their use, I think it was clear that, although a good number of people approved the idea behind their use and especially the simplified upload process, the images themselves were either disliked or, at least, needed improvement. That is my basis for making the statement above. If you have better wording, then I encourage anyone to edit the proposed conclusion of the initial discussion or make a suggestion here. I think Kleinzach is anxious to have a "verdict" on this portion of the discussion and that it might be fair to do so. The follow-up action can then continue. Thanks! DoubleBlue (Talk) 02:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussion can certainly continue here. It is entirely consistent with Set-up of Centralised discussion on image placeholders). DoubleBlue (Talk) 01:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that Kleinzach, in his recent "closure" of the discussion on the main page, takes a different view. Kleinzach, can you respond to DoubleBlue's point? Or explain why you think the discussion should be closed? I don't necessarily think ending this process is a bad idea, but I'd like to understand at least why it's a good one. I suspect I'm not alone in that. -Pete (talk) 02:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Paradoxial image

The placeholder images generally follow the format of: "If you have a free image, please click here". However, clicking the image takes you to the image description page of the placeholder file, which is of no use to someone attempting to upload a free image.

Forgive me if I am mistaken, but I do not see the point of placing the instruction "please click here" in the placeholder image unless it leads to a placeholder file specifically for a particular image, not a widely used placeholder like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Replace_this_image_female.svg. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BreakDecks (talk • contribs) 05:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Um, did you go to the image description page? It has the instructions for uploading an image and appears more like a special upload page rather than an image description. DoubleBlue (Talk) 06:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Finally

Glad to see these lame templates and images get deprecated. I got labeled "disruptive" by fans of them for having the gall to take them to WP:TFD a year or so back. Looks like I was right to do so after all. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep, don't try to find ways to get free images. Especially remove methods which have worked good. Good call there. Garion96 (talk) 20:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Bot Request to remove the image placeholders from articles

There is currently a Bot Request to remove the image placeholders from articles. You should make your opinion known there on the wisdom of such a move.

I also note that the conclusion was altered some time back to remove the recommendation that the images not be mass-added or -removed until the replacement discussions were concluded with the edit summary that it was "redundant". I fail to see how it was redundant and it certainly created confusion for those who now seek to understand what happened with the debate. DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:30, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Guidelines

It would be helpful if out of this useless bureaucratic daze came some sort of concise "This is what you should do instead of using the images" guideline (front and center) considering this page is linked to from the images themselves. or a link to the policy/recommendation page or something.

I can't believe such a simple thing escaped this illustrious group of people. You all should try creating an Encyclopedia instead of endlessly arguing about it for a change. §FreeRangeFrog 23:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, it does say "There was significant opposition to the use of images such as Replace this image female and Replace this image male and these should no longer be used on article pages" at the top of the main page. As for your somewhat uncivil comment about stopping arguing and getting back to creating an encyclopedia, I'm pretty sure that's what we did. This discussion is seven months old. DoubleBlue (Talk) 23:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The expertise needed to edit some of these things is baffling sometimes to me, I can scarcely imagine how it is for people who are less familiar with how a template works. A simple If you see this being used in a template, simply remove the image = XXXX line and save the page or something like that would be nice. I mean, this page is linked to from those images with a dire warning about not using them, and 99% of the time those are used in templates. Does that make sense? It does to me. Maybe I'm being illogical. I'm not surprised you thought my comment was uncivil, because I rarely write things without being cognizant about them, and I wasn't drunk. That's exactly the sentiment I wanted to convey. §FreeRangeFrog 23:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Please explain someone

I am genuinely confused about this page as I did not participate in a discussion and there seems to be no clear explanation here. I see a "Conclusion" made by User:Kleinzach but less than half of those who commented on the "draft conclusion" actually agreed with it. And yet it seems that this has passed into some sort of a semi-official guideline/policy. Why does User:Kleinzach's decision hold such authority? I see no consensus here.--Anon 10:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Kleinzach (the discussion facilitator) was summing up the consensus reached by a vote involving many editors which is archived. The majority of those who voted supported the stance that is indicated in his summation. A few of the dissenters felt the need to comment. That's all that is. I would suggest you look at the vote in the archives. The consensus for Kleinzach's summation is very clear.Nrswanson (talk) 11:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The "conclusion" written was certainly not approved. The consensus that came out of the discussion is written at the very top of the page: "There was significant opposition to the use of images such as Replace this image female and Replace this image male and these should no longer be used on article pages." I would add that having a placeholder for images is likely a good idea but too many people felt an image as a placeholder was not good. DOUBLEBLUE (talk) 11:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok that makes a bit more sense, thanks for emphasising the actual conclusion on top - it was not very clear. I had a look at the archived pages and it just shows me that there is a lack of consensus. Even within the people who voted "Agree" on Proposal 1 there is no total agreement. If you just turn each comment into a binary vote and ignore their comments, there is a majority on that particular proposal, but that's not consensus. Looks like Kleinzach took an easy way out that suits a lot of people, but again that's not consensus. But... I'm not going to bother arguing that, there has been enough of that here.--Anon 10:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't agree with you more; both on lack of consensus for most things and that there has been enough arguing. Cheers! DoubleBlue (talk) 07:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I just saw this thing for the first time today - I had no idea it was even an issue. These images continue to be used and continue to be added to articles - in my opinion, that's a good thing and should be encouraged. I can't imagine that suitable notice was given on the issue. --B (talk) 22:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

This was quite a long time ago now and there was really unmistakable opposition to the images and I say this as one of a minority who saw nothing wrong with them and much good with them. Nonetheless, if you are truly interested in what is a good idea to make image adding simpler for new users, you may want to check out what started to be developed as a solution following the initial discussion at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Image placeholders/Archive 3#The text placeholder solution. I think that we had really worked out a consensus for that idea and just needed to work out the details such as wording and adding the instructions to infobox templates but we were de-railed by continuing drama and we all tired of the whole damn thing. Cheers! DoubleBlue (talk) 22:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't overly like the text solution for two reasons - (1) the text will be included in search results and (2) it's not entirely obvious to a non-user what is supposed to go there. (Regular users know that a portrait of the person belongs there, but a non-Wikipedian wouldn't know that.) I tried parsing through the !votes but it was tough to follow and I'm not even entirely certain what they were voting on. They are obviously being used all over creation. My personal preference would be to take out the warning not to use them from Image:Replace this image male.svg and the like, archive the current version of this page, and have a widely publicized straight up or down !vote on the various possibilities (whatever they may be). (I know that voting is discouraged, but for something this big, there is really no way around it.) --B (talk) 22:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I have updated the text in the infobox to tell the actual results of the two polls - 35 editors (66%) agreed with the question, "placeholder images should not be used at all on the main page of articles", however, only 14 editors (45%) agreed with any particular recommendation. In my mind, no way in heck is 35 editors enough to judge consensus on a major question like this. When a poll was taken to determine whether or not there was a consensus for a recommendation, only 45% supported it. Given the utter lack of participation, it's obvious that sufficient notice was not given for it to be considered anything resembling binding. I would strongly advise that if anyone is really serious about getting rid of these things that we have an actual, publicized !vote on the subject. --B (talk) 21:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't much feel like going through those votes again but here's my recall: It is quite true, in my opinion, that polling was way over-used. I agree that there was no consensus on using placeholders for the purpose of easing the uploading of images but the consensus was pretty clear about not using the current images for that purpose. Even amongst those who were voting against the use of placeholders, many seemed to indicate in their rationale that it was what they looked like that they were opposed to. DoubleBlue (talk) 22:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the images leave something to be desired. My bone of contention with this whole "decision" is that nobody told the people actually writing articles about it. The current practice was then and still is to use it. I'm not picky about whether or not there is another discussion - just that I don't consider this one to be any more binding than one person's opinion. --B (talk) 22:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

What about this kind of image

[2] It's a gender-neutral side profile of a face in dark/light grey that I saw while surfing that looks more professional IMO than the current placeholders. A similar free-use image could likely easily be created.

I'd prefer no placeholder image, but a better placeholder is second best. Balsa10 (talk) 03:17, 23 January 2010 (UTC)