Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Image placeholders/Question 8. What ideas can be suggested for the modification of the image placeholder?

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Replace this image1.svg? DoubleBlue (Talk) 14:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)P.S. I'm not actually proposing using this image, just answering a previous question about a gender-neutral version. DoubleBlue (Talk) 14:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, I would prefer that were the universal placeholder, regardless of gender. (Although I share others' concerns about size and placement position). --Padraic 22:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • Surely there's a way to come up with a gender-neutral image? What about the above one do you think privileges males? --Padraic 22:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not in favor of image placeholders at all but if it does stay I would suggest using the image of a camera and not a human being. This avoids all possible accusations of gender bias.Nrswanson (talk) 22:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fantastic suggestion. --Padraic 23:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are members (not me personally) who feel that the use of gender based graphics draws undo emphasis to the subjects sex. Then there are others who feel the current neutral image is too masculine and therefore biased against women (again not me). So my solution would make everyone happy. Just show an image of a camera and not a person.Nrswanson (talk) 00:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appreciate that explanation; it was a little baffling to me. I still find it hard to believe that someone is that sensitive, however. If so, they can choose a different image on a case-by-case basis, surely? DoubleBlue (Talk) 01:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's turn this around: What good reason is there to include gender in the placeholder? What is lost by using the camera image? --Padraic 02:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing significant but I believe readers expect to see an image of a person in a bio article infobox. I am led to believe the unisex image was the first then a demand for gender-specific ones resulted in those being available. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If we're going for gender-neutrality, the camera works well. Though again, I'm against any sort of image and, if there's going to be one, replace-male vs. replace-female seems fine. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 03:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The camera image is non-controvercial and could be used on all pages. If there are editors raising concerns about gender bias than there are readers who will be sensitive as well. Let's avoid future conflicts and edit wars by just doing something that won't create any future problems.Nrswanson (talk) 09:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is there an actual person who is offended by a person image or is this a imagined possibility? DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. There were a number of complainers on the female image placeholder talk page. I don't share their opinion either but I think the problem is easily solved per nrswanson's suggestion.Broadweighbabe (talk) 21:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By my count, that number is one: an anon who praised youtube's "generic figures" (as if youtube knows a user's gender) but whose main concern seemed to be "1950s housewife hairstyle". A humorous and, I believe, sarcastic reply from User:Golbez was "STOP THE OPPRESSION OF THE CONEHEADS". DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. I don't think this is a significant improvement. I'm against using any kind of placeholder. It's the placeholder per se that's the main problem rather than the solicitation etc. --Kleinzach (talk) 23:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion For the benefit of this discussion lets suspend comments on whether one wants or does not want image placeholders. If we have to have them, I would suggest an image just above a page's categories section, that is 1/8 of the size of the current image placeholder and uses the camera picture.Nrswanson (talk) 09:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh I assume you are useing the monobook skin right? Notice step 4 of MediaWiki:Uploadtext/en-placeholder-people. See any problem your suggestion causes? In adition it is an SVG the size is meaningless. You are aware that the original had a nominal size of 10*10px right?Geni 13:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry Geni but for those like myself who are not tech savy that last comment meant nothing to me. Could you clarify for the tech illiterate people like me. I think it would be good to know what changes are possible to make. Is it possible to make the image smaller?Broadweighbabe (talk) 14:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
the image is an SVG it doesn't really have a size.Geni 14:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what SVG is lol. Are you saything that it is impossible to manipulate the size of the image. I know you can with graphs and maps, etc. on wikipedia. One of the issues here is that the image placeholders are way too big. If they can't be manipulated in size than I am definitely going to change my vote to being against placeholders.Broadweighbabe (talk) 14:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Geni, your sarcasm is not helpful. This is a complex subject, and not everyone here is as tech-savvy as you, or as familiar with the various steps of the image upload system.
Your first point, on the placement of the image, makes sense: since the upload system is designed to replace the generic image with the one uploaded, placing the generic image at the bottom of the article is not ideal.
Your second point is surmountable. The present format of the image is SVG; there's nothing preventing us from replacing it with, say, a 50x25 PNG file. That would address the size issue, no? -Pete (talk) 15:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Infoboxes would tend to try and upsacle the image resulting a pixelated mess. Current size it is determined by the size requested in the article although it is generally best to stick to 1*1 ratios. Infoboxes mostly seem to try and scale to 220px across (and due to lack of standardization this is a pain to fix and default thumb setting is about 180px across. I tend to find that 150*150px is the ideal since it leaves the text readable while not being bigger than required. What an SVG is is covered at Scalable Vector Graphics.Genisock2 (talk) 15:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the articles with the no free image tag added to them didn't have info boxes to begin with. So I'm not sure that is going to an issue for all the articles anyway.Broadweighbabe (talk) 16:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Evideces?Geni 18:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well I suppose I can't make a blanket statement like that. All I can say is that the majority of the pages' that I edit that had image placeholders put on them, didn't have info boxes to start with. Do you really want me to catalogue them? I can. There are about 25 articles with placholders on them. And I would venture around 20 had no info box to start. I personally am not a big fan of info boxes on smaller articles particularly ones without photos.Broadweighbabe (talk) 21:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An SVG basically has no defined size. It can scale to a million pixels across or ten without affecting the quality. I believe Geni's point is that the size of the image doesn't matter, it has to do with how it is implemented. --Cherry blossom tree 19:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Text[edit]

The current image says:

No free image
Do you own one?
If so please click here

Do people have any opinions as to whether this text requires altering? --Cherry blossom tree 19:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the love of God, can we please remove the "please click here"? Nothing else we use to solicit contributions involvse those words -- not the edit button, not the stubs...and all for good reason. I think internet users are savy enough to know to click on something that interests them. --Padraic 20:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Most readers don't think to click on images (and note how often it is the low res in article version of the image that gets stolen).Genisock2 (talk) 20:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand this concern a little. "Click here" is usually considered poor form but it makes some sense here because we want to encourage even non-savvy readers to contribute and an image is not an obvious link. Perhaps the phrasing could be changed to "If so, please add one" and make the phrase appear to be a clickable link (i.e. underlined blue). DoubleBlue (Talk) 20:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The text is succinct and effective. Remove the background image behind the text. Guroadrunner (talk) 11:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Ratio[edit]

A common complaint is that the image is too large, but since the most common location for it is in an infobox it is difficult to make a smaller image fit. One solution would be to have a "widescreen" version that takes up the width of the infobox but uses less vertical space. Would this be possible or would having a non-portrait infobox image look odd? --Cherry blossom tree 19:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My suspicion is that most of the articles had no info box to start. In my experiece, articles without photos tend not to have info boxes. One of the reasons for this is because smaller articles (stubs mostly), tend to only have a paragraph or so of information and the use of an infobox looks out of place with there being very little text. The image placeholder looks particularly out of place on these articles as the image placeholder takes up the same amount of room or more room on the article than the actual text. My personal feeling is that the image/click here button should be dissacociated with infoboxes altogether and should become more like a clickable tag.Nrswanson (talk) 09:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the reason this is jarring is because it's a human shape that doesn't work with the infoboxes. It also is a large gray image that covers 1/8th of the screen (I use 800 x 600). It is too large and overbearing, partially because of the gray image I think. Having basic text, with whitespace, seems like the best solution to me. Guroadrunner (talk) 07:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Location[edit]

People have suggested in response to the proposals that the placeholder could be used either lower down the page or on the talk page. That's not the best place for a discussion, so I'd like to start a discussion one here, focusing on aesthetic considerations and also on whether these options are likely to be successful in soliciting images. --Cherry blossom tree 19:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Readers don't look at the talk page and the image is aimed at readers. Lower down the page doesn't work because it makes it harder for people to find the text to replace (see step 4 of MediaWiki:Uploadtext/en-placeholder-people).Genisock2 (talk) 20:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well the location right now detracts from the actual article in my opinion. It is the article itself that should be the focus and not the image placeholder. I think you are right that the talk page is a bad place for it and it needs to be on the main article, but I don't think it should be the first thing that a readers' attention is drawn to when they come to an article. (which is what happens now) That in my opinion is a violation of WP Self. I think placement at the bottom of the page would be better and the link/image should be entireley disasociated with info boxes. I would suggest maybe under the see also/internal link section at the bottom. This would be a useful link to have anyway as some articles already with photos can benefit from multiple images.Broadweighbabe (talk) 21:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image placeholder is not the focus. It is off to the far right which in latin alphabets tend to indicate lower significance. It is also in somewhat paler colours than the article content.Genisock2 (talk) 22:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. It is the first thing that my eyes are drawn to.Broadweighbabe (talk) 22:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, readers look at graphics/images/photos before they actually read the article especially if they are positioned top left or right. Most will look before deciding whether or not to read the article - that's why the placeholder is such a liability. Joe Reader sees the placeholder - guesses there is something wrong with the article - doesn't read it. --Kleinzach (talk) 22:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I concur - this image is the first thing I see, and it is not off to the far right, it is a major component of what the eye sees. Maybe you are not bothered because you use perhaps 1068 x ... , and the text is the biggest thing in the center of the article, but when you use 800 x 600, it does not work. I find the best size for this box so it does not overcome the article is 70 * 70.
Do you have any evidence of this happening ever?Genisock2 (talk) 00:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Genisock can you stop being so snide. Kleinzach and Broadweighbabe are right and common sense would tell anyone that. Everyones eye goes to the big info box first. It's the huge pink elephant in the room.Nrswanson (talk) 09:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While it is possible that people go to infoboxes first we have someone else agueing that the images mostly don't appear in infoboxes. In any case the second part of the argument doesn't follow unless there is actual evidence for it.Geni 13:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No. The image creates an infobox when it is placed where one didn't exist before.Nrswanson (talk) 15:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't posible. Or at least while technicaly posible would be very hard to do and would require a knowlage of our info boxes across topics that I've never encountered in anyone. You sure you are not confuseing an image frame (the thing you get around a thumbnail image) and an infobox template?Geni 15:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I probably am lol. Well whatever it is the thing is still way too big and that is where your attention is drawn.Nrswanson (talk) 18:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
150*150? Doubtful given that the standard when they want to draw your attention is far larger and generally in stronger colours (150*150 is somewhat smaller than the default thumb size). Still you know you can control thumbnail size? My preferences --> files.Genisock2 (talk) 18:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But that is where the photo should go. It's just that some don't like this particular image. The placeholder should be where the photo should be. DoubleBlue (Talk) 14:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well that is where you and I disagree. In fact I really am not for a "place holder" at all but for an easy clickable link at the bottom of an article that links you to Genisocks user friendly system to upload a photo to that page. That in my opinion would be useful and non-violating to wikipedia Self. Nrswanson (talk) 18:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
and it has already been explained why that won't work. See step 4 of MediaWiki:Uploadtext/en-placeholder-people.Genisock2 (talk) 19:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's just that some don't like this particular image. That's not true. Some don't like this particular image. Some don't like any image. Some would be okay with something smaller and similar to a stub template at the bottom of the page. Perhaps "placeholder" is the wrong word, since even the proponents don't seem to care about the "hold place for a photo" function so much as they care about the "draw attention to the upload form for new images" function. Northwesterner1 (talk) 20:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I don't think that's true. I know I've stated repeatedly that this image is doubly useful as a placeholder and encouraging contributions and Geni has tried repeatedly to say that the image has to be where the uploader is going to "replace" the image. DoubleBlue (Talk) 23:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I apologize for misstating your position. I will say that in my view the most compelling argument in favor of the images is the "draw attention to the upload form" function, not the placeholder function.Northwesterner1 (talk) 23:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, if we aren't objecting to photos in the infobox, then what's the difference? Reply: this particular image. DoubleBlue (Talk) 23:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • For some people the reply is: Any placeholder image. The difference between placeholder images and other photos in the infobox is WP:SELF and the suggestion of inadequacy.Northwesterner1 (talk) 23:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that case, it can be corrected with improved wording. DoubleBlue (Talk) 23:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well unless the image placeholder is a lot smaller then I would rather have nothing at all then. Or develop a new upload system that can use a clickable link at the bottom.And i could care less doubleblue about what the actual image is (a person, camera, etc.). I just think the darn thing is way too big.Nrswanson (talk) 20:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What resolution monitor are you useing?Genisock2 (talk) 20:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think Geni is right here. It must be your screen resolution that makes them too large or, possibly, a poor choice of image size in the infobox that should be corrected. I think a link at the bottom would be near useless for new editors and don't see any problem with an image in the infobox. That's where it belongs. DoubleBlue (Talk) 23:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • We place [edit] boxes at every header to make it easy for people to see an error or omission and click the edit box right nearby to correct it. The same should be for the infobox photo. Reader sees plenty of articles with the subject's photo in the infobox, comes to Soand So's article and says Where's Soand So's picture? Oh they don't have one and would like me to add it. DoubleBlue (Talk) 23:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stub-style Template[edit]

It has been suggested in the "image modifications" section and elsewhere on this page that (if we decide to have something on the main page of the articles), the image placeholders could be replaced by a small template at the bottom of articles that functions somewhat like the current stub template. It could consist of text only and be linked to an upload form specialized for new users. I would like to hear more ideas about the feasibility of this approach.

  • Geni has pointed out that the upload form is designed to replace the image placeholder in its current location, and thus it's impossible to move the placeholder to the bottom of the page or to a different location. I wonder why the process has to be automated? If we currently have editors watching the category of upload images closely, monitoring for copyvios and image quality, couldn't they also place the images themselves on the article pages in a suitable location? So far, the number of images placed on articles (less than 450 over a period of months) doesn't seem like it would be too much of a burden if this work was shared by a WikiProject or task force devoted to the proper procurement and placing of free images uploaded by new users.
  • Another objection is that a template at the bottom of the page would not be as effective in capturing the eye of new users and encouraging them to upload photos; while that may be true, it would also not be so flagrant in disrupting the article layout, suggesting inadequacy, and violating WP:SELF, and thus may be more acceptable to the community.
  • From the other side, I think many editors would still feel that nothing of the sort belongs on the main page of the article, and that such a template should go on the talk page.

Thoughts? Northwesterner1 (talk) 09:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've thought about this, but I don't see it working. If the success rate of the present, conspicuous placeholder is less than 1 percent, then that of a discreet, bottom of the page link would be negligible. Better to have it on the Talk page where it could be more prominent without being controversial.--Kleinzach (talk) 10:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that a stub-style template would be less effective, but can you please address the points raised about statistics in the relevant section if you wish to continue using the 'less than one per cent' figure? We already have a system for requesting photos on talk pages ({{reqphoto}} and related templates) and this is less successful. Firstly, there is no such thing as 'prominent' on a talk page, since most of them already have umpteen banners competing for attention. Secondly, readers (who these placeholders are aimed at) rarely look at talk pages. --Cherry blossom tree 13:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move to subpage?[edit]

The main page is now 143k long and it's becoming difficult to navigate - especially for newcomers. Would it be acceptable to move this ('Ideas for modification') to its own subpage? The page would of course still be open - it would not be an archive. Thanks. --Kleinzach (talk) 10:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support.Northwesterner1 (talk) 10:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. As there have been no objections I've now moved it. --Kleinzach (talk) 23:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The image[edit]

What about just having the silhouette without the text in the image and putting the text in a caption below? In fact, we could just simulate that with text added to the image. In fact, here's a rough idea of what I'm thinking. The underlined blue text is supposed to look like a link and make it more obvious that you can click on it and, I hope, avoid the phrase "click here". DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's an improvement but in my opinion still too big.Nrswanson (talk) 21:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it is the same or smaller than the standard size of a photo in an infobox. DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Smaller standard infobox images are 220px. Not much we cam do about that I'm afraid.Genisock2 (talk) 22:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just found these two previous proposals that have a very similar idea. DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

float
float

I don't think the silhouette looks good at all, no matter what color it is. Given that whatever image will link to a page that explains the whole bit about "you have to own the copyright" there's no point including all that on the image. My proposal is to use a completely blank (transparent?) picture with a minimum of words on it. (The image I uploaded wouldn't work because it's a GIF - I don't have software to create SVG images, which would be better.) This net effect could probably be produced with a template so that everyone's font/color/size settings are reflected in the "image". – jaksmata 13:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having no silhouette with just these few words solves many of the problems that other people have with this whole system. A blank white area isn't usually considered "ugly", there's no gender issue, there's no unprofessional "click here" message, whitespace doesn't distract from the article, there's no implication of Wikipedia's incompleteness, there's not even a reference to Wikipedia. One still remaining problem is that it bumps other infobox text down the page, which one editor suggested isn't good. – jaksmata 14:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I could possibly live with a blank image with some text but I'm not sure that it's necessary. We expect to see an image of a person in a bio infobox so I can't see how it's inherently jarring or ugly to have a person image. I think we could come up with a better person image placeholder. I think the text should mention that we need a copyright-free image rather than waiting for the person to search Google Images for a nice copyrighted shot then clicking on the placeholder to learn that it's not acceptable. DoubleBlue (Talk) 16:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm no psychologist, but I suspect that the problem is this: We don't expect to see a person, we expect to see the person. Although the silhouette is fairly neutral in appearance by itself, seeing it in an infobox where we expect to see something else is what jars us.
I'll respectfully disagree that we need a copyright notice per Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles. I can identify with editors who are disappointed because they worked hard on something only to find out it was inappropriate, but that's something everyone has to get over. It's happened to me.
On a separate note, my blank image with text could be easily modified to be shorter/wider if deemed to contain too much whitespace. – jaksmata 16:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I didn't get my point across clearly. I wasn't advocating any kind of disclaimer just something more clear about what's desired than "Upload an image"; something more like what it says now about needing a free image and adding it if you "own" one. DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if you expect to see the person in the infobox (and I think we generally do), then it's also jarring not to see one there and the kind of explanation that the invitation to contribute one is would, IMO, be good. DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. How about "upload a picture" or "upload a picture of this person" as the caption? I still think we should leave out specific copyright requirements since they'll see that immediately upon clicking. – jaksmata 21:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't think that in the context of an article about X, the word "image" would be understood by most people to mean anything except "an image of X". – jaksmata 22:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it does not need to be any more specific about what image we want but do think it would be helpful to say what kind (i.e., free). Somewhere on the main discussion page, an admin noted that the addition of the current placeholder seemed to cut down on non-free image additions as it stated clearly the reason we don't have an image is that we don't have a free one. I also think it is a courtesy to the potential uploader, as I stated above, to know what's needed before he goes through the trouble of finding a photo that turns out doesn't meet our needs. DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The text in some of the images suggested is very small. This is a problem because it doesn't scale up for people who use their browsers 'zoom' setting. I think we need to be confident that any text in an image can be read by anyone. --Cherry blossom tree 16:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good point. DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll put something out here soon. Remind me to do so. Guroadrunner (talk) 11:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: posted after discussion closed[edit]

New versions of the images[edit]

It seems like they'd look a lot less garish with more whitespace, a better font, etc. Here's an attempt I made (I'd be happy to do one for the female version, too.)

Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 12:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contribution. It looks good to me but for the dreaded "click here" phrase. DoubleBlue (Talk) 01:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Centralized_discussion/Image_placeholders/Question_8._What_ideas_can_be_suggested_for_the_modification_of_the_image_placeholder%3F&oldid=1140250899"