Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Image placeholders/Proposal 2

Proposal 2: If placeholder images are retained, they should be modified in appearance
''If Proposal 1 passes, this proposal is void. If Proposal 1 does not pass, but Proposal 2 does pass, then we will have a subsequent discussion about the nature of any modifications.''


 * Please discuss possible improvements at Centralized discussion/Image placeholders/Ideas for modification of the image placeholder. Double Blue  (Talk) 15:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * One example of an article with a smaller "image" (containing only text) that could be used as a basis for an alternative: HMS Dreadnought (S101). (Note, this example was added to the discussion after 21 !votes have been cast, below. It's probably safe to assume most of those 21 !voters did not see this example.) -Pete (talk) 17:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree. (a) "Click here" text should be smaller; (b) image itself should be smaller used in a smaller thumbnail on articles; (c) images should be gender-neutral.Northwesterner1 (talk) 02:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * again this size thing. Do you know what an SVG is?Genisock2 (talk) 23:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree User:Jeanenawhitney has created one here that I prefer to the current ones. MarnetteD | Talk 03:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral: Present one meets my approval but a better one is possible. Double Blue  (Talk) 04:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree I would suggest a stub like link at the bottom of pages.Nrswanson (talk) 05:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Doesn't work.If you follow through the upload process you will see that there is a reason they are placed at the top.Genisock2 (talk) 23:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree. I don't think a graphic (silhouette/image/call it what you like) is necessary at all. A simple text at the foot of the page would be sufficient. --Kleinzach (talk) 11:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree. Gender neutrality, please. --Padraic 13:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree. Smaller please. In one liner articles with an infobox I sometime have to scroll down to find the information that is there because of the placeholder image. Rettetast (talk) 13:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral. The basic design is fine, but tinker away. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree -- if prop 1 fails, I would at least support making the text and image smaller and placing the request at the bottom of the article. Oppose "gender neutrality" which almost always privileges male looking images over female. Making a separate image for women and men is one of the few motions on the pro side I agree with. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 20:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree. Would prefer movement to the talk page, but a small note at the bottom of the article, similar to a stub tag, would be a compromise. Like the stub system, it should preferably be hierarchical and indexed to external lists of biographical articles lacking images, so as to assist in acquiring appropriate images. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral Current design is fine IMO but I'm not opposed to most changes. I am opposed to a "gender neutral" image, per Myke Cuthbert, because "gender neutral" really just means male-looking. (Most women have long hair and men have short hair... Would we ever choose a long-hair image as "gender neutral"? Of course not.) Mangostar (talk) 13:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree per User:Kleinzach A simple text at the foot of the page is more than sufficient. Voceditenore (talk) 21:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Except it has already been explained why this won't work.Geni 16:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

*Agree - Although the software in wikipedia is so limmiting I am not sure what all can be done.Insearchofintelligentlife (talk) 03:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC) Note: We understand Insearchofintelligentlife is a sockpuppet (now blocked) --Kleinzach (talk) 13:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC) *Agree But I do not want them retained.Divinediscourse (talk) 20:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC) Note: We understand Divinediscourse was a sockpuppet, now blocked. --Kleinzach (talk) 02:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree. Much too "in-your-face" at present. Sandstein (talk) 21:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree. The images could be modified so that they are not such a blatant violation of WP:SELF. Kaldari (talk) 01:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree They are too large and text can achieve the same thing per User:Kleinzach.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree: (1) If it can be done, move to bottom of article as a small item like stub info; (2) if this is impossible, then make the placeholder into a compact piece of text instead of an image. PamD (talk) 12:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Disagree. I see no problems with the current implementation.  Powers T 15:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree - If placeholders are retained, then they should be a simple line of text on a plain background, stating "no image available". - hahnch e n 17:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree - either stub image size or text only Сасусlе 04:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree. Many (most?) of the concerns relate to appearance, so we should have discussion about how to allay those concerns. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree - as BrownHairedGirl says above, most of the problems with these placeholder images are to do with their current appearance rather than the general principle. I would prefer the images to be smaller and less obtrusive, preferably gender-neutral, and not include the 'click here' text - the placeholder used on HMS Dreadnought (S101) is more appropriate, and would be a considerable improvement. Terraxos (talk) 23:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral. I've no objection to the current image, but in principle I don't object to a suitable replacement. A somewhat less obtrusive image would be fine. I rather like the shadow profiles on the human placeholders; I'm not sure about whether objects are better served by similar shadow placeholders or simple text as with Image:No Photo Available.svg or in which situations. older ≠ wiser 12:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree something less intrusive, that allows a relevant image to be used at the top. Johnbod (talk) 12:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree firmly. They need to be much less intrusive. The boxes themselves are visually detrimental to articles and are therefore not okay in their current state. Their intent is fine, but the images used need to be much more basic. My recommendation would be to have no grayscale images used as backgrounds for the text . My preference would be to have black and white text with a border for the placeholder, or to have the image request marker be placed at the bottom of the page per nrswanson's idea. Guroadrunner (talk) 12:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree strongly: I had thought of suggesting what Guroadrunner did, but I wasn't going to bring it up, since I'd rather the whole system gone. Since the idea is out now, I've added it to Centralized discussion/Image placeholders/Ideas for modification of the image placeholder. –  j ak s mata  14:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree - The blank placeholders at Category:Wikipedia image placeholders are fine as many of them are used for spacing. However, their numbers should be reduced to provide a set of blank placeholders where no more than one entry serves a particular purpose. As for the graphic image placeholders, should be no more than two to four Wikipedia image placeholders and the rest should be deleted. GregManninLB (talk) 15:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: I am finally seeing the beginning of some discussion going on how to improve things. Can you please add your ideas to Ideas for modification of the image placeholder subpage. Nearly all (or perhaps all) of the objections are in regard to the appearance. Let's work on a compromise to fix that. Double Blue  (Talk) 15:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but a good number (perhaps the majority) of the people whose objections are in regard to appearance want a stub a template at the bottom of the page. As I understand it, the proponents of the placeholder are saying that's impossible.Northwesterner1 (talk) 17:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course it's not impossible but not of any real use as it is not a placeholder if it's in the wrong place. Double Blue  (Talk) 21:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Which is why it's misleading to say that nearly all objections are in regard to appearance, since many of those objections regarding appearance are about "placement," which is another way of saying they're about "function" (placeholder vs. image request template). Northwesterner1 (talk) 21:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * We wouldn’t call a replacement template an “image placeholder,” DoubleBlue. It would be a “request for expansion” like many other templates that are currently in use. I disagree that the template would be “not of any real use” just because of its location. If that were true, then we should get rid of stub templates. –  j ak s mata  21:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree - They've been changed in appearance a few times, but only by a few people here and there. There's been no wide discussion about what they should look like, but obviously a lot of people think they should look different.  Something structured like the original logo contest would work best I think. — Omegatron (talk) 23:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This proposal is now closed as of Wednesday, April 23 (12.00 GMT/UTC)****

Side Comments 1
Genisock, I think it would be appropriate for you to move your responses from the proposal section to a separate subsection (such as this) or to the discussion above. I believe the Proposal area is most useful when it doesn't become a back-and-forth. Thanks. Northwesterner1 (talk) 19:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * back and forth is kinda a requirement of logical debate.Genisock2 (talk) 22:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but it is better to have the back-and-forth elsewhere. You're responding to points that have also been made above, where the discussion is enfolding at greater length.Northwesterner1 (talk) 22:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Side Comments 2

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

I don't think the images should be kept. That said, if they are kept, there are two changes that should be made. The first, I believe, is uncontroversial -- I mentioned it above, nobody responded. It should be done immediately. -Pete (talk) 00:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Image class should be added to both images, so that they don't appear when articles that contain them are printed. This is how notability, cleanup, etc. boxes are treated.
 * The image should be replaced with a much shallower one (roughly 150x30.) It should not have a silhouette or any image, but just an "image" version of the following text: "Do you own rights to a photo of this article's subject? Please upload it!"
 * The former is only possible where infoboxes already exist. The latter well no exclamation marks please.Genisock2 (talk) 18:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)