Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Image placeholders/Proposal 4

Proposal 4: If placeholder images are retained, they should be extended to a wider range of articles
''If Proposal 1 passes, this proposal is void. If Proposal 1 does not pass, but Proposal 4 does pass, then we will have a subsequent discussion about extending the placeholders to a wider range of articles. Other areas where a free photo could reasonably be created (say weaponry likely to appear in museums) should also have placeholder systems built for them.'' (proposal added by Genisock2, modified by Northwesterner1 (talk) 18:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC))

Disagree. My thoughts are articulated extensively in other sections. -Pete (talk) 15:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. My thoughts are also articulated extensively in other sections.Nrswanson (talk) 15:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Disagree / Objection This unsigned proposal was created by Genisock2 without due consultation. It is obfuscating in relation to this centralized discussion. --Kleinzach (talk) 16:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment. I think anybody is free to create a proposal without consultation, but I do believe they should be signed. I am changing the title and the description to match the other proposals in this section, so that none of the proposals contradictions any of the other proposals, i.e. to clarify that this proposal is void if Prop 1 passes.Northwesterner1 (talk) 18:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. For the record, I also disagree.Northwesterner1 (talk) 18:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Disagree with proviso. If prop1 fails, then this would most likely be because of a no consensus outcome. In that case, there would be no consensus to expand the use either. If prop1 were heavily voted down then my objection would not be applicable.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Disagree Per my comments on above proposals.Insearchofintelligentlife (talk) 03:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC) Note: We understand Insearchofintelligentlife is a sockpuppet (now blocked) --Kleinzach (talk) 13:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Disagree per, well, everyone. Johnbod (talk) 12:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Disagree per above.Divinediscourse (talk) 20:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC) Note: We understand Divinediscourse is a sockpuppet (now blocked)--Kleinzach (talk) 02:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Disagree based on terms that Proposal 1 and Proposal 4 are connected in discussing widespread use of the placeholders. This should be a proposal connected to all above proposals in whether placeholder should be put in more locations or areas. Disagreeing based on connection to other proposals. Guroadrunner (talk) 12:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Disagree per Johnbod. I really like articles with images, but this is not a good way to get them. –  j ak s mata  14:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Disagree that there should be different placeholder images depending on the article. There would be no end/oversight to such a system (see example images on right and here). However, I do agree that if the placeholder image system is retained, the system should be generic enough to apply to all articles. GregManninLB (talk) 23:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


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

Side comments

 * Fighting ships people have had alternatives for a while HMS Dreadnought (S101).Genisock2 (talk) 15:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The image on that Dreadnought article is much more acceptable to me than the silhouette images. But Genisock, I thought you told us that smaller images were not possible? -Pete (talk) 15:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No I said the image is an SVG. Talking about size makes no sense any more than asking if you can make sinX+X2=y where X=0 to 3 smaller.Genisock2 (talk) 15:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Geni, the size of the image on the Dreadnoght article is smaller than the silhouette images, on my computers and likely on the vast majority of computers, and likely with the vast majority of user preferences. You are an intelligent person, I am sure you can understand that. It's one of the things I, and several other commenters, have been requesting for some time, met each time with a dismissive statement from you about semantics and vector files. Insisting on technically detailed and properly worded specifications from non-technical editors is not a way to move discussion forward. It is patently obvious that nobody cares about the abstract size of the image in question; the issue at hand is how it appears in an article. -Pete (talk) 17:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand that but it still isn't a meaningful question. "An article" isn't very useful. For example the the image in the Dreadnought article is only the size it is because of where it is. Depending on the article you see it in the placeholder maybe any of the sizes you see it on this page.Geni 18:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * (unindent) I think the version on the Dreadnought article, as used on that article, although it may be less obvious to the reader that they can provide a photo (no "click here"), avoids many of the aspects of the silhouette image, that editors have objected to above. As used on the Dreadnought article, I'd no longer refer to it as an "image placeholder", but rather a tag.  Would something like what's on the Dreadnought article be a workable type of "middle ground" that could be used as a starting point to satisfy the concerns many participants on "both sides" of this discussion have voiced? --Lini (talk) 19:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It stills seems like a gregarious sign advertising something that is obvious to the reader. One doesn't need a sign telling you there is no photo to know there is no photo.Nrswanson (talk) 19:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * What I'm envisioning is something of approximately that size and shape, above the infobox if there is one, or elsewhere on the page if there is no infobox, with smaller, less bold font, that says something like "No photo available. Persons in possession of a free image of this subject are encouraged to contribute by uploading the image.", with the words "uploading the image" being a link to the upload form, and formatted so that they are obviously a link. The key advantage to me, of the Dreadnought example, is that it doesn't have to be in place of an image, which makes it more like a maintenance tag, and less distracting, and which would be more acceptable to me. Thanks, Lini (talk) 20:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Key disadvantage to not having a placeholder is that it doesn't show an editor new to images where or how to add a photo. I also don't see a disadvantage to having an image in the infobox since that's where we ultimately want an image anyway. Let's work on an image that is not objectionable to some like the current ones seem to be. Double  Blue  (Talk) 21:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't like the phrase "no photo available". That seems to indicate no photo exists but what we want are placeholders for where a free image is possible. Double Blue (Talk) 20:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * DoubleBlue, its not that people don't like the photo it's the fact that their is something in that space at all that is not content which they don't like. Also I don't think the average reader will know what a "free image" is.Nrswanson (talk) 21:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Clicking on the photo gives more information on what photos are acceptable and then going to the special upload form categorises them specially for reviewing. Double  Blue  (Talk) 21:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That's great doubleblue and it is a wonderful feature but it has nothing to do with what I want to change which is size and location. I don't want to see anything, nothing advertising for a photo as soon as I open an article. Zilch. I want something small and below the article down by the cats and below the references. And I think that is what most people want to see happen.Nrswanson (talk) 15:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If something approaching the function of the placeholder is kept that would be my desire as well.Divinediscourse (talk) 20:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)