Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Image placeholders: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 14:23, 4 June 2022

Archive 1 (Image talk:Replace this image female.svg)
Archive 2: Centralised discussion on use of Image Placeholders
Archive 3: Discussions post-23 April 2008

From April 11 to 23 April 2008, a centralized discussion considered the appropriateness of using "from-owner" image placeholders on biographies of living persons. A carefully structured discussion clarified the objections to this practice as well as its benefits.

There was significant opposition to the use of images such as Replace this image female and Replace this image male. 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.

The female version of the placeholder box. It is hyperlinked to an image upload form targeted to new users.
The male version of the placeholder box.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The archives

28 April 2007 "Miscellany for deletion" debate.

The debate concluded with a consensus of "keep", largely on the basis that the experiment was new, might prove useful, and needed more time; most of the substantive objections that have framed the debate were first raised in this MfD, and were effectively unaddressed.

Archive 1: Original discussion at Image talk:Replace this image female.svg)

This discussion took place from December 2007 until 11 April 2008, when the centralized discussion was established on this page.

Archive 2: Centralised discussion on use of Image Placeholders

This discussion took place from 11 April until 23 April. Summaries of the various questions and proposals considered are given here.

Archive 2 Subsections (full texts):

Archive 3:Discussions post-23 April 2008

This discussion took place from 23 April until 9 May 2008.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Conclusion

Conclusions to centralized discussions are either marked as 'policy', 'guideline', 'endorsed', 'rejected', 'no consensus', or 'no change' etc. (The form of words is open.) Decision on this discussion is now long overdue.

Draft conclusion:

Based on all discussions, questions and proposals made in the discussion ending 23 April, the following text for this conclusion is proposed:

~~Endorsed~~ Recommended: Image placeholders should not be used on article pages. (Image placeholders are defined as boxes reserving spaces for photographs and pictures to be contributed later. They include Replace this image female.svg, Replace this image male.svg and similar variants.)

Recommended: Further discussions on systems to replace image placeholders for the purpose of soliciting images for articles are encouraged and should take place at Project Free images or another agreed location.

(Please approve/disapprove or suggest any new wording as you think appropriate.) Thank you. --Kleinzach (talk) 04:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Disagree with endorsed statement. I supported Proposal 1 ("image placeholders should not be used on article pages") but I strongly believe we do not yet have consensus for it. Consensus cannot be ratified by a vote, per WP:Consensus and WP:Polling. In addition, 66% support is lower than usual measures of consensus. Also disagree with recommended statement. Further discussion on a system to replace the image placeholders is part of the process of building a strong working consensus to remove the current placeholders. The discussion should remain here where everyone is watching it and all interested editors can participate. I am confident we will build a strong consensus to remove the placeholders as you define them, but the process is not yet complete. Northwesterner1 (talk) 10:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Seconded. Fishal (talk) 14:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment This confuses the conclusions of the centralized discussion with Proposal 1. The WP-widely notified discussion finished on 23 April. Instead of denying the process, it would be more constructive to suggest different wording to the conclusion (if the present wording is inaccurate or inappropriate). --Kleinzach (talk) 23:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reply Fair enough. I propose the following wording, most of which is already in place at the top of this page: "From 11 April to 23 April 2008, a centralized discussion considered the appropriateness of using "from-owner" image placeholders on biographies of living persons. A carefully structured discussion clarified the objections to this practice as well as its benefits. A proposal to remove the image placeholders received 66% support in a straw poll, demonstrating that there is significant opposition to the use of these placeholders, but not yet consensus to remove them entirely. Discussion now continues on how to improve the "from-owner" system, with or without image placeholders, and to draft guidelines for future uses of the system. Recommended: Editors should not add or remove placeholders from articles while this discussion continues. Editors should be notified that we are likely to recommend the removal of placeholders when we have an alternative system in place. Recommended: Discussion continues on this page. Participants should familiarize themselves with the previous discussion by reading the archive."Northwesterner1 (talk) 00:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thank you. I agree with that. Would you please replace that in the introduction? That is how we develop conclusions: by writing and editing and reverting on the main page and justifying on the talk page; not voting. DoubleBlue (Talk) 00:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment I'm not sure how you think I'm confusing the conclusions of the centralized discussion with Proposal 1, when ~~your "conclusion"~~ the conclusion you proposed is basically a restatement of Proposal 1: Image placeholders should not be used on article pages.Northwesterner1 (talk) 00:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Reply Not my conclusion. It's the conclusion of the participants. They are free to choose an appropriate form of words.--Kleinzach (talk) 00:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree with both "endorsed statement" and "recommended statement, per Northwesterner. Also, I believe this push for conclusion is premature; it's on the sole initiative of one of numerous participants in the discussion. There is a productive discussion taking place immediately above; I oppose any effort to interfere with it. -Pete (talk) 11:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. How can the conclusion be premature if the (WP-wide notified) centralized discussion ended (with unanimous agreement) on 23 April? Let's set the record straight here. --Kleinzach (talk) 23:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. No need to talk about setting the record straight. We have a record. There was certainly not "unanimous agreement" to end the centralized discussion if by "end the discussion" you mean close up shop and go home. There a loose agreement at best, and in my opinion the agreement was to move on from the questions and proposals and begin working toward a solution, which we are now doing. Anyone who wants to read for themselves can read here.Northwesterner1 (talk) 23:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with proposed conclusion, though I accept 66% may be relatively low for a concensus figure (I'm not sure what the history is on such proposals). Realistically, if placeholders remain, er, in place, then further debate may well peter out inconclusively. If they go now, or after an agreed period, I'm sure a better way of doing this will emerge. This page is already long and tangled enough; the relevant issues should be summarized for debate on a new one. All involved should approach the debate in a constructive spirit. Johnbod (talk) 11:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note, the 66% figure is erroneously high. I !voted in favor of Proposal 1, which was an expression of my views. But characterizing that as support for an absolute ban on the placeholders is inaccurate. I would oppose such a "ban", and from the ensuing discussions, believe there are others who supported Proposal 1 who take that view. -Pete (talk) 18:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  The wording on Proposal 1 was: Placeholder images should not be used at all on the main page of articles. Everybody here can judge for themselves whether that was clear or not. --Kleinzach (talk) 22:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  Well, not all "placeholders" are "placeholder images." The option now under consideration, an option that might have a chance at a stronger consensus than anything attempted before if folks are willing to discuss it, is not a "placeholder image" and yet it functions much like a placeholder. So where does it fall under the 66/33 breakdown of Proposal 1?Northwesterner1 (talk) 23:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And reading the justifications for those votes shows that their concerns are met by the solution that has no image. This is why we work with consensus decision making rules rather than football match rules. We can work toward a solution that overcomes the objections. DoubleBlue (Talk) 23:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree, there isn't that much consensus at all. Sceptre ^(talk) 11:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. While there is a majority opinion, discussion should remain open without the constraint of a new guideline or policy, as there is no clear consensus. Concluding proceedings now would be premature. —CComMack (t–c) 12:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Approve of draft conclusion. Wanderer57 (talk) 12:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. There is a majority in favour of the proposal, but not a consensus. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree with the endorsement, agree with the recommendation, and suggest you recommend rather than endorse the other option. Just start writing the guideline on placeholders and let consensus form through editing the guidance. You'll find it forms before your very eyes. Hiding T 12:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disapprove of the conclusions. It's clear there is no consensus as of yet; discussion should continue. Powers ^T 12:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree with the endorsement. Agree with both recommendations (as per recent rewording of draft conclusion. Voceditenore (talk) 16:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)). Two-thirds of the discussants advocating Proposal 1 seems a little low to claim consensus for an endorsement, and could just lead to more trouble down the line. Perfect consensus is often impossible, as there will always remain one or two hold-outs, but a reasonable or 'working' consensus ought to be a little higher that this. Having said that, I would support a conclusion of "Recommended" for the statement currently labelled as "Endorsed". I think there's probably enough of a consensus for that. Voceditenore (talk) 13:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Change in wording: I've followed your suggestion and replaced 'Endorsed' with 'Recommended'. I hope that is helps us make some progress with this.--Kleinzach (talk) 13:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree endorsement but think there is consensus already for the recommendation. Garion96 (talk) 13:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. This is obviously not the consensus. Phil Sandifer (talk) 13:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)*[reply]
Agree to draft conclusion. The current image placeholders are not acceptable and incompatible with current Wikipedia guidelines and conventions. I might only be willing to compromise on small stub-like notes at the end of articles. The discussion was extensive and should find an end soon, why not in this voting? Сасусlе 14:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree per Voceditenore's wording change. Also, whether the discussion stays here or moves to another page more thought needs to be given to putting the requests for pics in a spot other than the infobox. MarnetteD | Talk 14:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. Unfortunately this issue seems far from ever reaching consensus, and the ongoing discussion seems to be ignoring most of the proceeding discussion. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Up to the point when (almost all) editors participated in writing summaries of the discussion that ended on 23 April, we did have a coherent process and a document that was readable. Not any more. It's disappointing to see what has happened. --Kleinzach (talk) 23:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Approve satisfies all parties, imo. --AStanhope (talk) 14:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. Consensus seems to be that this "conclusion" is out of line (71% disagree as of now). The text placeholder solution looks like it is gaining consensus, why did you omit that from your conclusion? Because of some deadline last week? I'll call your attention to the text of Proposal 2 again: "If Proposal 1 does not pass, but Proposal 2 does pass, then we will have a subsequent discussion about the nature of any modifications" (emphasis mine). Proposal 1 did not pass, and we are in the middle of that subsequent discussion. – jaksmata 14:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Approve. Although I suspect more discussions will be necessary to reach a conclusion satisfactory to everyone. Kaldari (talk) 14:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with both. Kill the image placeholders until new ones are developed. Guroadrunner (talk) 16:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Approve, both work for me. --Bobak (talk) 16:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One thing that seems to have been overlooked here is that this template is one of the main gateways into people submitting us photos by email. If anything, that should be made more obvious (because a lot more people are going to do that than go through all the hoops necessary to register). Raul654 (talk) 17:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you are saying. I clicked through and noted the wording which I have copied to Image:Picture Needed.svg which could be used in place of {{reqfreephotoin}} in my suggestion below. SilkTork *^YES! 18:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. If anything, the only consensus is that no proposal is ready to be put forward at this point. older ≠ wiser 17:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The place where people are being recommended to use placeholders is here. It might be better to look at wording there rather than on a general guideline. Something like: If an image is desired but not available, one may place {{reqfreephotoin}} on the talkpage. The use of Image:Replace this image male.svg and Image:Replace this image female.svg is currently under discussion and is discouraged while debate continues. If people are aware there is an issue regarding a procedure, then people think twice about using that procedure. I don't think we need be so heavy as to impose a rule. Let people know there is an issue regarding use of the placeholders and see what happens. SilkTork *^YES! 17:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree - Agree with the reworded statement. There is a strong sentiment against the placeholders. - hahnch e n 18:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree and wonder why everything goes immediately to a vote; what happened to back and forth editing and discussion. If you think it is necessary to have a written conclusion to the first stage voting, then I will put my suggestion in the introduction at the top and encourage everyone to edit it to improve and take impasses to the talk page to hash out. DoubleBlue (Talk) 18:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have amended the wording on the Personbox guideline to If an image is desired but not available, one may place Image:Picture Needed.svg on the talkpage. The use of Image:Replace this image male.svg and Image:Replace this image female.svg is currently under discussion. This alerts people to the discussion and offers a working solution. SilkTork *^YES! 18:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a Needs Photo option on Template:WPBiography which goes on the talkpage of biography articles. The Placeholder is simply duplicating that. Hmm. SilkTork *^YES! 18:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that it is duplication. The placeholder effectively puts an edit button in the infobox by linking to the special simplified upload page and showing where and how the photo can be placed. the reqfreephoto tag does none of that, it just says to those who go to the talk page that a photo would be helpful, which, in itself, is pretty unhelpful. DoubleBlue (Talk) 19:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with both. I firmly believe removing these harms the project. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree -- but hardly seems to make a difference if I agree or disagree since the sides don't seem to have enough faith in the decision making process to not let this drag on forever. This is beginning to look like Flagged Revisions, etc.: we've already had a long discussion, proposals !voted on, summarized etc. Then the summaries are removed, !votes discounted, discussion called insignificant, etc. Why should anyone believe that this second discussion be any different and actually reach a conclusion? -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 23:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The decision making process on Wikipedia is WP:consensus. Having faith in the decision making process means participating in building a consensus, not pretending that a consensus has been achieved. Summaries have been moved, not removed. (If you have an objection to that, it is under discussion on the talk page.) What we are doing here is entirely consistent with the consensus process. !Votes have not been discounted. The only Proposal that had clear consensus was Proposal 2 (image placeholders should be revised). We may be able to do better than that and get rid of them entirely if we propose an alternative system that has strong support and will prove acceptable to opponents of Proposal 1. We are close to that now, as we appear to have DoubleBlue's support and possibly Cherryblossomtree. The prior discussion was not insignificant -- the objections and defenses of image placeholders that we clearly formulated are now the basis for the ongoing discussion. It's clear that this conclusion statement is not going anywhere. It is now a sideshow to the ongoing discussion that we should be having. So we can either sit here and talk in circles, or we can look at the proposed consensus solution (text-placeholders) to see if it is acceptable to the community. Your comments are welcome above.Northwesterner1 (talk) 23:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Facts, please facts. The discussion described as a "sideshow" was properly advertised throughout WP, not just as a centralized discussion but also on RFC, the Signpost and various Wiki Projects. It attracted over 50 participants and closed with unanimous agreement on 23 April. In contrast Northwesterner1's group - which has so shambolically attempted to preempt the discussion - has only 6 members (Northwesterner1, Pete, DoubleBlue, Jaksmata, Cherry blossom tree, Jaksmata, Geni). --Kleinzach (talk) 00:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. The discussion I described as a "sideshow" is this "Conclusion" section you have started here, which distracts from the process of working toward an actual resolution. So far it has 11 agree !votes and 15 disagree !votes. I have a hard time seeing what you intend to accomplish here. The only possible good I can see is that it may convince you that in fact the discussion has not concluded. The conversation under the "Moving Forward" section on this page is a continuation of rather than a "shambolic preemption" of the previous discussion. (Side question: By definition, how could we preempt something that you believe was over?) It's hardly "my group," and more editors have commented here than the 6 you mention. It continues to be a widely WP-notified discussion, still listed at WP:CENT, WP:RFC, and on everyone's watch page. I know you feel the page has gotten out of hand and has become hard to follow, but that's because you have not helped to structure the ongoing discussion but rather to interrupt it. You worked so hard to get us through this process, I have no idea why you've decided to sabotage it.Northwesterner1 (talk) 00:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - On 21 April Northwesterner1 wrote "I also support a April 23 date for closing the discussion." How can the discussion be carrying on - after we have all announced that it is over? As for the charge of sabotage - that should be withdrawn. Personal insults - any kind of personalizing of the considerable problems here - are unhelpful. --Kleinzach (talk) 00:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Kleinzach, you made a similar accusation to me in email, about having a "group" that was trying to accomplish something here (which I take to be an accusation that there are some of us who have a shared and hidden agenda.) I'd like to state clearly that the notion is rubbish, at least as far as I'm concerned. You are the only person in this discussion with whom I've had private communications of any sort, on any topic. Apart from a handful of email messages between you and me, my entire contribution to this discussion is open for public scrutiny. The goals I've stated throughout the process are an accurate accounting of my motivation. -Pete (talk) 20:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Slight correction: I've had a few private communications with one of the editors involved in the preliminary discussion, but never on the topic of placeholders. -Pete (talk) 20:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain - Acknowledging the request for participants in the original discussion to approve or disapprove in an attempt to come to a conclusion, but in the circumstances I cannot feel comfortable with either agreeing or disagreeing. Sorry. -- Lini (talk) 01:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree - I see no consensus that "image placeholders should not be used on article pages". — Omegatron (talk) 23:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain - The closing admin should ignore this consensus discussion on the conclusion. AfD and other discussion are not handled this way and this discussion should be no exception. There is plenty of discussion on Image placeholders above so that there is no need to agree upon what was agreed upon. GregManninLB (talk) 08:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Summary

1. Johnbod, Wanderer57, Hiding, Voceditenore, Сасусlе, MarnetteD, AStanhope, Kaldari, Guroadrunner, Bobak, Hahnchen, Myke Cuthbert, Klenzach, Wizardman (14) (Note: Wizardman added his name on 13 May) agreed that the conclusion should be:

Recommended: Image placeholders should not be used on article pages.

Recommended: Further discussions on systems to replace image placeholders for the purpose of soliciting images for articles are encouraged and should take place at Project Free images or another agreed location.

2. Garion96 (1) disagreed that the conclusion should be:

Recommended: Image placeholders should not be used on article pages. But agreed that it should be: Recommended: Further discussions on systems to replace image placeholders for the purpose of soliciting images for articles are encouraged and should take place at Project Free images or another agreed location.

3. Northwesterner1, Fishal, Pete, Sceptre, CComMack, BrownHairedGirl, LtPowers, Phil Sandifer, DoubleBlue, Espresso Addict, Jaksmata, Bkonrad, Hammersoft, Omegatron (14) disagreed with both conclusions.

4. Lini and GregManninLB (2) abstained.

5. Northwesterner1 proposed and DoubleBlue agreed:

"From 11 April to 23 April 2008, a centralized discussion considered the appropriateness of using "from-owner" image placeholders on biographies of living persons. A carefully structured discussion clarified the objections to this practice as well as its benefits. A proposal to remove the image placeholders received 66% support in a straw poll, demonstrating that there is significant opposition to the use of these placeholders, but not yet consensus to remove them entirely. Discussion now continues on how to improve the "from-owner" system, with or without image placeholders, and to draft guidelines for future uses of the system. Recommended: Editors should not add or remove placeholders from articles while this discussion continues. Editors should be notified that we are likely to recommend the removal of placeholders when we have an alternative system in place. Recommended: Discussion continues on this page. Participants should familiarize themselves with the previous discussion by reading the archive."

I trust that is accurate. (If not please say so!) Thank you. --Kleinzach (talk) 00:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Comment

Why does everything turn to votes in your eyes? Just debate and alter and consider and revise till there's consensus. A little back and forth co-operation and compromise. DoubleBlue (Talk) 01:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Attempts to prevent archiving Conclusion section (immediately above)

I ask editors not to disrupt the perfectly normal procedure of archiving sections of this discussion as Peteforsyth has just done twice: here and here. There's no reason to disrupt normal and uncontroversial processes. This section has been discussed and summarized. It's finished. It's over. It's pointless and frankly rather childish to try to prolong it. It's time to move on. Thank you. --Kleinzach (talk) 02:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Advice to the closing admin from an uninvolved reader

I have spent about a half hour reading some of this discussion. There is no consensus to remove the placeholder images from articles as a rule. There is consensus that the placeholder images are ugly and should be replaced with something better. I assume that the parties to this discussion are working on improvements.

I distinguish between placeholder images and spoiler templates, which were equally widespread at their heyday in about 40,000-50,000 articles, and where their removal caused even more controversy than this discussion. I can honestly say that spoiler templates did not substantively improve the encyclopedia. In contrast, placeholder images have improved the encyclopedia by encouraging users to upload free images. There may be better ways to accomplish the same purpose, but the basic existence of placeholder images in articles is consistent with Wikipedia's core mission.

I also agree that not every article about a living or dead person needs to have a free image. To transclude these images indiscriminately on every article in Category:Living people would be inadvisable. Editors should use discretion to consider how likely it is that a free image will be found. In other words, I support using placeholder images for famous people who make frequent public appearances, but not for private individuals who happen to have written a book or achieved notability in some other channel outside of public view.

Considering the weight of arguments on both sides, the two-thirds majority in favor of removing image placeholders from article space cannot be considered a consensus in my opinion. Much of the opposition seems to be answerable by less drastic measures, namely, removing image placeholders from individual articles of private individuals where a free photo is unlikely to be found, and by improving the unappealing appearance of these images. The next steps need to include a list of proposed alternative designs, and a guideline to be added at Wikipedia:Image placeholders to define which biographies should include image placeholders.

I hope these comments will help the community and the closing administrator move forward toward a solution. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 21:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent summary and well made points which I fully support. Hiding T 23:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the time to do this. That's helpful. --Kleinzach (talk) 23:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Image placeholders: Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 14:23, 4 June 2022

Contents

The archives

Conclusion

Comments

Summary

Comment

Attempts to prevent archiving Conclusion section (immediately above)

Advice to the closing admin from an uninvolved reader

Navigation menu

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+<center>[[Image:Vista-file-manager.png|35px|Archive]]<br/>[[Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Image placeholders/Archive 1|Archive 1 (Image talk:Replace this image female.svg)]]<br />[[Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Image placeholders/Archive 2|Archive 2: Centralised discussion on use of Image Placeholders]]<br />[[Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Image placeholders/Archive 3|Archive 3: Discussions post-23 April 2008]]</center>
-----
-----
-----
-<center>[[Image:Vista-file-manager.png|35px|Archive]]<br/>[[Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Image placeholders/Archive 1|Archive 1 (Image talk:Replace this image female.svg)]]</center>
-----
-----
-----
-{{RFCstyle| section=section name !! reason=Some editors regard image placeholders as informative, effective, essential and consistent with WP, others find them detracting and ugly, ineffective, unnecessary and contra [[WP:SELF]]. We need to resolve this. More opinions are welcome. !! time= 06:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC) }}
-----
-----
-----
-{{cent|width=width|float=right}}
-[[Image:Replace this image female.svg|thumb|The female version of the placeholder box. It is hyperlinked to an image upload form targeted to new users.]]
-[[Image:Replace this image male.svg|thumb|The male version of the placeholder box.]]
-[[:Image:Replace this image female.svg|Replace this image female]] and [[:Image:Replace this image male.svg|Replace this image male]] are the latest versions of placeholder boxes that have been systematically added to 50,789 living biography articles lacking photos of their central subjects.  The boxes link to a specialized upload form and license template system soliciting pertinent photos or illustrations from readers.
+{{ombox
-Some of these placeholder boxes have been removed from articles, and concerns and objections have been put forward. These include:
+| type  = notice
-* The addition of these boxes violates the [[WP:SELF]] guideline, which argues that reference to Wikipedia's editable nature should generally not take place within articles.
+| image =
-* Most readers would not be able or willing to help; the box detracts from the article for the vast majority of readers, while being useful for only a very few.
+| style =
-* By appealing specifically to readers who are not familiar with Wikipedia's approach to copyright, the system will lead to an inordinate number of copyright violations; the fact that most uploaders are presently experienced editors is a good thing.
+| textstyle =
-* The system is redundant; there are already initiatives and sidebar links to encourage the uploading of photos.
+| text  = <p>From April 11 to 23 April 2008, a centralized discussion considered the appropriateness of using "from-owner" [[Wikipedia:Image placeholders|image placeholders]] on biographies of living persons. A carefully structured discussion clarified the objections to this practice as well as its benefits.</p>
-* The boxes are unsightly, resembling advertisements found on commercial websites with for-profit motives.
-* The boxes suggest the article is inadequate; Wikipedia is always a work-in-progress, but an article without a photo should not be considered inadequate (as an article that lacks references is).
+<p>There was significant opposition to the use of images such as [[:Image:Replace this image female.svg|Replace this image female]] and [[:Image:Replace this image male.svg|Replace this image male]].  [[Wikipedia:Centralized_discussion/Image_placeholders/Archive_2#Proposal_1:_Placeholder_images_should_not_be_used_at_all_on_the_main_page_of_articles|35 editors (66%) agreed]] with the question, "placeholder images should not be used at all on the main page of articles", however, only [[Wikipedia:Centralized_discussion/Image_placeholders#Summary|14 editors (45%) agreed]] with any particular recommendation.</p>
-Proponents of the system have stated that the system is already effective at soliciting new photos. They are in the process of documenting this claim. They state:
+}}
-*More than 430 free photos (and illustrations) have been uploaded and filtered in [[:Category:Reviewed images of people replacing placeholders]].
+{|
-*The simplified upload form is more user-friendly than Wikipedia's existing system (at least for new users).
+|<gallery>
-*The form has a system built in that eases filtering of resulting photos and illustrations for copyvios.
+Image:Replace this image female.svg|The female version of the placeholder box. It is hyperlinked to an image upload form targeted to new users.
-*Concerns regarding appearance could be addressed by an understated redesign.
+File:Image is needed male.svg|The male version of the placeholder box.
-*Placeholders are consistent with the philosophy of Wikipedia that encourages everyone to participate, new users especially.
+</gallery>
+|{{cent|width=width|float=right}}
+|}
+{{discussion top}}
+==The archives==
-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?
+*<big>[[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Fromowner|28 April 2007 "Miscellany for deletion" debate]].</big>
-'''How We Got Here'''
+The debate concluded with a consensus of "'''keep'''", largely on the basis that the experiment was new, might prove useful, and needed more time; most of the substantive objections that have framed the debate were first raised in this MfD, and were effectively unaddressed.
-Prior discussion has taken place in various corners: user talk pages, image talk pages, article talk pages, and at some wikiprojects.
-On April 9-11, there was a "Proposal to suspend all further use of this graphic on article pages pending a centralized discussion" ([[Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Image placeholders/Archive 1|archived here]]) at [[Image talk:Replace this image female.svg]]. The proposal passed with 18 editors in agreement, 12 editors in disagreement, and 2 abstentions.
+*<big>[[Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Image placeholders/Archive 1|Archive 1: Original discussion at Image talk:Replace this image female.svg)]]</big>
+This discussion took place from December 2007 until 11 April 2008, when the centralized discussion was established on this page.
-[[User:Kleinzach]] closed the previous discussion on April 11 and provided a thorough summary in the section [[Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Image placeholders/Archive 1#Summing up|Summing up]]. (The summary is recommended reading; it's nice and succinct.) We then began this centralized discussion. Pending the outcome of this discussion, some editors have agreed to suspend their addition or removal of this placeholder box as we look toward a broader consensus.
+*<big>[[Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Image placeholders/Archive 2|Archive 2: Centralised discussion on use of Image Placeholders]]</big>
-==Issue by issue?==
-How shall we develop this discussion? Should we do it issue by issue? --[[User:Kleinzach|Kleinzach]] ([[User talk:Kleinzach|talk]]) 07:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
+This discussion took place from 11 April until 23 April. Summaries of the various questions and proposals considered are given '''[[Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Image placeholders/Archive 2|here]]'''.
-: I like this approach, yes.-[[User:Peteforsyth|Pete]] ([[User talk:Peteforsyth|talk]]) 05:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
+::Archive 2 Subsections (full texts):
+{{Refbegin}}
+:*[[/Question 1. WP:SELF: Are placeholders compatible?|Question 1. WP:SELF: Are placeholders compatible?]]
+:*[[/Question 2. Are placeholders successful in soliciting pictures?|Question 2. Are placeholders successful in soliciting pictures?]]
+:*[[/Question 3. Is a biography without a photo of its central subject inadequate?|Question 3. Is a biography without a photo of its central subject inadequate?]]
+::* [[/Question 3. Is a biography without a photo of its central subject inadequate?#Subquestion: Do the placeholder boxes suggest that articles are inadequate?|Do the placeholder boxes suggest that articles are inadequate?]],
+::* [[/Question 3. Is a biography without a photo of its central subject inadequate?#Subquestion: Is the suggestion of inadequacy an acceptable side effect?|Is the suggestion of inadequacy an acceptable side effect?]]
+::* [[/Question 3. Is a biography without a photo of its central subject inadequate?#Subquestion: Do past discussions about fair use vs. free images indicate consensus that images are necessary?|Do past discussions about fair use vs. free images indicate consensus that images are necessary?]]
+:*[[/Question 4. Placeholders and Wikipedia 'style': are they compatible?|Question 4. Placeholders and Wikipedia 'style': are they compatible?]]
+:*[[/Question_5:_What_would_the_ideal_system_look_like|Question 5: What would the ideal system look like?]]
+:*[[/Question 6: Do placeholders help discourage editors from uploading non-free (i.e. fair use) images?|Question 6: Do placeholders help discourage editors from uploading non-free (i.e. fair use) images?]]
+:*[[/Question 7: Is 'Template:Images needed' an acceptible article space alternative to 'Category:Wikipedia image placeholders'?|Question 7: Is 'Template:Images needed' an acceptible article space alternative to 'Category:Wikipedia image placeholders'?]]
+:*[[/Question 8. What ideas can be suggested for the modification of the image placeholder?|Question 8. What ideas can be suggested for the modification of the image placeholder?]]
+:*[[/An overview of the history, context, and technical aspects of image placeholders and the related upload system|An overview of the history, context, and technical aspects of image placeholders and the related upload system]]
+:*[[/Proposal 1|Proposal 1:Placeholder images should not be used at all on the main page of articles (passed)]]
+:*[[/Proposal 2|Proposal 2: If placeholder images are retained, they should be modified in appearance]]
+:*[[/Proposal 3|Proposal 3: If placeholder images are retained, the method by which they are applied should be modified]]
+:*[[/Proposal 4|Proposal 4: If placeholder images are retained, they should be extended to a wider range of articles]]
+:*[[/Additional Proposals|Additional Proposals]]
+{{Refend}}
+*<big>[[Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Image placeholders/Archive 3|Archive 3:Discussions post-23 April 2008]]</big>
-====Structuring the debate====
-We already have a lot of text here, so can I make a plea here for '''''making the discussion as structured as possible?''''' That way newcomers/late joiners will be able to find their way more easily into the debate and not be put off by rambling, off topic threads. The more focused we are, the more likely we are to progress towards an effective consensus. Thanks. --[[User:Kleinzach|Kleinzach]] ([[User talk:Kleinzach|talk]]) 23:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
+This discussion took place from 23 April until 9 May 2008.
-:Agreed. I would suggest newcomers start with the overview at the top of this page, which includes a link to [[Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Image placeholders/Archive 1#Summing up|this helpful summary]] of the [[Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Image placeholders/Archive 1|previous discussion]]. Further discussion on specific points is proceeding below, and at the bottom of this page I've added a [[Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Image placeholders#Proposals|Proposals]] section where editors can express their opinion on concrete actions we could take.[[User:Northwesterner1|Northwesterner1]] ([[User talk:Northwesterner1|talk]]) 07:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
+{{discussion bottom}}
+{{discussion top}}
-===Participation===
+==Conclusion==
+Conclusions to centralized discussions are either marked as 'policy', 'guideline', 'endorsed', 'rejected', 'no consensus', or 'no change' etc. (The form of words is open.) Decision on this discussion is now ''long'' overdue.
+'''Draft conclusion''':
-I'm concerned by the lack of participation. Do those who participated in the earlier, more procedural decision (whether to interrupt image placement ''pending'' discussion) feel that they've already had their say? We should be sure that those who are interested express their views here. Also, have we done enough outreach to broaden the discussion? I think contacting the Footballers and Opera singers and Oregon WikiProjects (which discussed the issue) would be worthwhile, also the Free Images WikiProject, and possibly writing something up for the Wikipedia Sign Post. (Something that has affected 50k articles, and stands to affect many more, seems worthy of a Signpost mention to me.) Thoughts? Should I do some of this outreach? Is anybody else doing it, or interested in doing it? (I think our conclusion, whatever it is, should reflect the views of as broad a group as possible.) -[[User:Peteforsyth|Pete]] ([[User talk:Peteforsyth|talk]]) 05:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
+Based on all discussions, questions and proposals made in the discussion ending 23 April, the following text for this conclusion is proposed:
-:Some of the initial heat and urgency may have gone out of the debate, but this may be a good thing if we are going to work for a rational solution. This more detailed second stage of the discussion may develop slowly. I've already notified [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Free images|Free images]] and the Classical music projects ([[Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music|Classical music]], [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Contemporary music|Contemporary music]] and [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera|Opera]]) about the centralized discussion here. [[User:Northwesterner1|Northwesterner1]] has covered the [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography|Biography project]]. If you like to add something to the Wikipedia Sign Post - or anything else you thing is worthwhile - that will be great. --[[User:Kleinzach|Kleinzach]] ([[User talk:Kleinzach|talk]]) 08:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
+*<s>'''''Endorsed'''''</s> '''''Recommended''''': '''Image placeholders should not be used on article pages'''. (Image placeholders are defined as boxes reserving spaces for photographs and pictures to be contributed later. They include [[:Image:Replace this image female.svg|Replace this image female.svg]], [[:Image:Replace this image male.svg|Replace this image male.svg]] and similar variants.)
-::I also think many people feel like they've already "voted." It's a shame to see low participation here, since the outcome of that discussion was split right down the middle. Would it be appropriate to post a link to this discussion on the talk page of everyone who commented in the prior discussion?[[User:Northwesterner1|Northwesterner1]] ([[User talk:Northwesterner1|talk]]) 10:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
+*'''''Recommended''''': Further discussions on systems to replace image placeholders for the purpose of soliciting images for articles are encouraged and should take place at [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Free images|Project Free images]] or another agreed location.
-:::I posted here:
-:::* [[Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)]]‎
-:::* [[Wikipedia talk:Upload placeholder images‎]]
-:::* [[Image talk:Replace this image male.svg]]
-:::* [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard]]
-:::[[User:Northwesterner1|Northwesterner1]] ([[User talk:Northwesterner1|talk]]) 10:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)‎
+(Please approve/disapprove or suggest any new wording as you think appropriate.) Thank you. --[[User:Kleinzach|Kleinzach]] ([[User talk:Kleinzach|talk]]) 04:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
-:::: I'm happy to be overruled, but in my opinion it's ''not'' necessary to post directly to all previous participants. Putting something in the Signpost will complete our notification process.  Having more people involved does not necessarily help in forming our conclusions. (BTW the result of the vote was 18:12 which is not exactly "split right down the middle".) --[[User:Kleinzach|Kleinzach]] ([[User talk:Kleinzach|talk]]) 11:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
+===Comments===
-:::::I think a broad consensus will be needed, given that this issue affects so many articles. Pete, I think you should run with the signpost notification if you're willing. We may also want to consider setting a defined time limit or some other method by which we might know when this discussion is complete.[[User:Northwesterner1|Northwesterner1]] ([[User talk:Northwesterner1|talk]]) 07:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
+*'''Disagree''' with endorsed statement. I supported Proposal 1 ("image placeholders should not be used on article pages") but I strongly believe we do not yet have consensus for it. Consensus cannot be ratified by a vote, per [[WP:Consensus]] and [[WP:Polling]]. In addition, 66% support is lower than usual measures of consensus. Also '''disagree''' with recommended statement. Further discussion on a system to replace the image placeholders is part of the process of building a strong working consensus to remove the current placeholders. The discussion should remain here where everyone is watching it and all interested editors can participate. I am confident we ''will'' build a strong consensus to remove the placeholders as you define them, but the process is not yet complete. [[User:Northwesterner1|Northwesterner1]] ([[User talk:Northwesterner1|talk]]) 10:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
+**'''Seconded.'''  [[User:Fishal|Fishal]] ([[User talk:Fishal|talk]]) 14:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
+***'''Comment''' This confuses the conclusions of the centralized discussion with Proposal 1. The WP-widely notified discussion finished on 23 April. Instead of denying the process, it would be more constructive to suggest different wording to the conclusion (if the present wording is inaccurate or inappropriate). --[[User:Kleinzach|Kleinzach]] ([[User talk:Kleinzach|talk]]) 23:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
+****'''Reply''' Fair enough. I propose the following wording, most of which is already in place at the top of this page: "From 11 April to 23 April 2008, a centralized discussion considered the appropriateness of using "from-owner" image placeholders on biographies of living persons. A carefully structured discussion clarified the objections to this practice as well as its benefits. A proposal to remove the image placeholders received 66% support in a straw poll, demonstrating that there is significant opposition to the use of these placeholders, but not yet consensus to remove them entirely. Discussion now continues on how to improve the "from-owner" system, with or without image placeholders, and to draft guidelines for future uses of the system. Recommended: Editors should not add or remove placeholders from articles while this discussion continues. Editors should be notified that we are likely to recommend the removal of placeholders when we have an alternative system in place. Recommended: Discussion continues on this page. Participants should familiarize themselves with the previous discussion by reading the archive."[[User:Northwesterner1|Northwesterner1]] ([[User talk:Northwesterner1|talk]]) 00:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
+*****Thank you. I agree with that. Would you please replace that in the introduction? That is how we develop conclusions: by writing and editing and reverting on the main page and justifying on the talk page; not voting. [[User:DoubleBlue|<span style="color:darkblue;">'''Double'''</span><span style="color:blue;">Blue</span>]] ([[User talk:DoubleBlue|Talk)]] 00:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
+****'''Comment''' I'm not sure how you think I'm confusing the conclusions of the centralized discussion with Proposal 1, when <s>your "conclusion"</s> the conclusion you proposed is basically a restatement of Proposal 1: Image placeholders should not be used on article pages.[[User:Northwesterner1|Northwesterner1]] ([[User talk:Northwesterner1|talk]]) 00:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
+*****'''Reply''' Not ''my'' conclusion. It's the conclusion of the participants. They are free to choose an appropriate form of words.--[[User:Kleinzach|Kleinzach]] ([[User talk:Kleinzach|talk]]) 00:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
+* '''Disagree''' with both "endorsed statement" and "recommended statement, per Northwesterner. Also, I believe this push for conclusion is premature; it's on the sole initiative of one of numerous participants in the discussion. There is a productive discussion taking place immediately above; I oppose any effort to interfere with it. -[[User:Peteforsyth|Pete]] ([[User talk:Peteforsyth|talk]]) 11:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
+:*'''Comment'''. How can the conclusion be premature if the (WP-wide notified) centralized discussion ended (with unanimous agreement) on 23 April? Let's set the record straight here. --[[User:Kleinzach|Kleinzach]] ([[User talk:Kleinzach|talk]]) 23:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
+::*'''Comment'''. No need to talk about setting the record straight. We have a record. There was certainly not "unanimous agreement" to end the centralized discussion if by "end the discussion" you mean close up shop and go home. There a loose agreement at best, and in my opinion the agreement was to move on from the questions and proposals and begin working toward a solution, which we are now doing. Anyone who wants to read for themselves can [[Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Image placeholders/Archive 2#Concluding the discussion (deciding the closing date)|read here]].[[User:Northwesterner1|Northwesterner1]] ([[User talk:Northwesterner1|talk]]) 23:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
+*'''Agree''' with proposed conclusion, though I accept 66% may be relatively low for a concensus figure (I'm not sure what the history is on such proposals). Realistically, if placeholders remain, er, in place, then further debate may well peter out inconclusively. If they go now, or after an agreed period, I'm sure a better way of doing this will emerge. This page is already long and tangled enough; the relevant issues should be summarized for debate on a new one. All involved should approach the debate in a constructive spirit. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 11:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
+** Please note, the 66% figure is erroneously high. I !voted in favor of Proposal 1, which was an expression of my views. But characterizing that as support for an absolute ban on the placeholders is inaccurate. I would oppose such a "ban", and from the ensuing discussions, believe there are others who supported Proposal 1 who take that view. -[[User:Peteforsyth|Pete]] ([[User talk:Peteforsyth|talk]]) 18:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
+**:The wording on Proposal 1 was: '''Placeholder images should not be used at all on the main page of articles.''' Everybody here can judge for themselves whether that was clear or not. --[[User:Kleinzach|Kleinzach]] ([[User talk:Kleinzach|talk]]) 22:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
+**::Well, not all "placeholders" are "placeholder images." The option now under consideration, an option that might have a chance at a stronger consensus than anything attempted before if folks are willing to discuss it, is not a "placeholder image" and yet it functions much like a placeholder. So where does it fall under the 66/33 breakdown of Proposal 1?[[User:Northwesterner1|Northwesterner1]] ([[User talk:Northwesterner1|talk]]) 23:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
+:::And reading the justifications for those votes shows that their concerns are met by the solution that has no image. This is why we work with consensus decision making rules rather than football match rules. We can work toward a solution that overcomes the objections. [[User:DoubleBlue|<span style="color:darkblue;">'''Double'''</span><span style="color:blue;">Blue</span>]] ([[User talk:DoubleBlue|Talk)]] 23:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
-::::::Please allow reasonable time for people to learn that the issue has been raised. For example, I've been online quite a bit in last two days, but just chanced on a mention of the matter a few minutes ago. [[User:Wanderer57|Wanderer57]] ([[User talk:Wanderer57|talk]])
+*'''Disagree''', there isn't that much consensus at all. '''[[User:Sceptre|Sceptre]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Sceptre|talk]])</sup> 11:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
+*'''Disagree'''.  While there is a majority opinion, discussion should remain open without the constraint of a new guideline or policy, as there is no clear consensus.  Concluding proceedings now would be premature.  —[[User:CComMack|CComMack]] ([[User talk:CComMack|t]]–[[Special:Contributions/CComMack|c]]) 12:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
+*'''Approve''' of draft conclusion.  [[User:Wanderer57|Wanderer57]] ([[User talk:Wanderer57|talk]]) 12:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
+*'''Disagree'''.  There is a majority in favour of the proposal, but not a consensus. --[[User:BrownHairedGirl|<span style="color:#996600; cursor: not-allowed;">Brown</span>HairedGirl]] <small>[[User_talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]] • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]])</small> 12:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
+*'''Disagree''' with the endorsement, agree with the recommendation, and suggest you recommend rather than endorse the other option. Just start writing the guideline on placeholders and let consensus form through editing the guidance. You'll find it forms before your very eyes. [[User:Hiding|Hiding]] <small>[[User talk:Hiding|T]] </small> 12:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
+*'''Disapprove''' of the conclusions.  It's clear there is no consensus as of yet; discussion should continue.  [[User:LtPowers|Powers]] <sup><small><small>[[User talk:LtPowers|T]]</small></small></sup> 12:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
+*<s>'''Disagree''' with the endorsement.</s> '''Agree''' with both recommendations (as per recent rewording of draft conclusion. [[User:Voceditenore|Voceditenore]] ([[User talk:Voceditenore|talk]]) 16:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)). Two-thirds of the discussants advocating Proposal 1 seems a little low to claim consensus for an endorsement, and could just lead to more trouble down the line. Perfect consensus is often impossible, as there will always remain one or two hold-outs, but a reasonable or 'working' consensus ought to be a little higher that this. Having said that, I would support a conclusion of "Recommended" for the statement currently labelled as "Endorsed". I think there's probably enough of a consensus for that. [[User:Voceditenore|Voceditenore]] ([[User talk:Voceditenore|talk]]) 13:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
+:*'''Change in wording''': I've followed your suggestion and replaced 'Endorsed' with 'Recommended'. I hope that is helps us make some progress with this.--[[User:Kleinzach|Kleinzach]] ([[User talk:Kleinzach|talk]]) 13:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
+*'''Disagree'''  endorsement but think there is consensus already for the recommendation. [[User:Garion96|Garion96]] [[User talk:Garion96|(talk)]] 13:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
+*'''Disagree'''. This is obviously not the consensus. [[User:Phil Sandifer|Phil Sandifer]] ([[User talk:Phil Sandifer|talk]]) 13:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)*
+* '''Agree''' to draft conclusion. The current image placeholders are not acceptable and incompatible with current Wikipedia guidelines and conventions. I might only be willing to compromise on small stub-like notes at the end of articles. The discussion was extensive and should find an end soon, why not in this voting? [[User:Cacycle|Сасусlе]] 14:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
+*'''Agree''' per Voceditenore's wording change. Also, whether the discussion stays here or moves to another page more thought needs to be given to putting the requests for pics in a spot other than the infobox. [[User:MarnetteD|MarnetteD]] | [[User talk:MarnetteD|Talk]] 14:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
+*'''Disagree'''. Unfortunately this issue seems far from ever reaching consensus, and the ongoing discussion seems to be ignoring most of the proceeding discussion. [[User:Espresso Addict|Espresso Addict]] <small>([[User talk:Espresso Addict|talk]])</small> 14:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
+:*'''Comment'''. Up to the point when (almost all) editors participated in writing summaries of the discussion that ended on 23 April, we did have a coherent process and a document that was readable. Not any more. It's disappointing to see what has happened. --[[User:Kleinzach|Kleinzach]] ([[User talk:Kleinzach|talk]]) 23:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
+*'''Approve''' satisfies all parties, imo.  --[[User:Astanhope|AStanhope]] ([[User talk:Astanhope|talk]]) 14:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
+*'''Disagree'''. Consensus seems to be that this "conclusion" is out of line (71% disagree as of now). The text placeholder solution looks like it is gaining consensus, why did you omit that from your conclusion? Because of some deadline last week? I'll call your attention to the text of Proposal 2 again: "If Proposal 1 does not pass, but Proposal 2 does pass, then we will have a '''''subsequent''''' discussion about the nature of any modifications" (emphasis mine). Proposal 1 did not pass, and we are in the middle of that subsequent discussion.&nbsp;&ndash;&nbsp;[[User_talk:Jaksmata|<font color="black" style="background:#FFFFDD"><font color="red">'''j'''</font>ak<font color="red">'''s'''</font>mata</font>]] 14:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
+*'''Approve'''. Although I suspect more discussions will be necessary to reach a conclusion satisfactory to everyone. [[User:Kaldari|Kaldari]] ([[User talk:Kaldari|talk]]) 14:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
+*'''Agree''' with both. Kill the image placeholders until new ones are developed. [[User:Guroadrunner|Guroadrunner]] ([[User talk:Guroadrunner|talk]]) 16:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
+*'''Approve''', both work for me. --[[User:Bobak|Bobak]] ([[User talk:Bobak|talk]]) 16:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
+* One thing that seems to have been overlooked here is that this template is one of the main gateways into people submitting us photos by email. If anything, that should be made more obvious (because a lot more people are  going to do that than go through all the hoops necessary to register). [[User:Raul654|Raul654]] ([[User talk:Raul654|talk]]) 17:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
+::I see what you are saying. I clicked through and noted the wording which I have copied to [[:Image:Picture Needed.svg]] which could be used in place of {{tl|reqfreephotoin}} in my suggestion below. <span style="border: 1px  #F10; background-color:cream;">'''[[User:SilkTork|<span style="font-family:Script MT; color:#1111AA; font-size:small;">SilkTork</span>]]''' *[[User talk:SilkTork|<sup>YES!</sup>]]</span> 18:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
+*'''Disagree'''. If anything, the only consensus is that no proposal is ready to be put forward at this point. [[User:Bkonrad|older]] ≠ [[User talk:Bkonrad|wiser]] 17:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
+*The place where people are being recommended to use placeholders is [[Template:Infobox_Person#Parameters|here]]. It might be better to look at wording there rather than on a general guideline. Something like: ''If an image is desired but not available, one may place {{tl|reqfreephotoin}} on the talkpage. The use of [[:Image:Replace this image male.svg]] and [[:Image:Replace this image female.svg]] is currently under discussion and is discouraged while debate continues.'' If people are aware there is an issue regarding a procedure, then people think twice about using that procedure. I don't think we need be so heavy as to impose a rule. Let people know there is an issue regarding use of the placeholders and see what happens. <span style="border: 1px  #F10; background-color:cream;">'''[[User:SilkTork|<span style="font-family:Script MT; color:#1111AA; font-size:small;">SilkTork</span>]]''' *[[User talk:SilkTork|<sup>YES!</sup>]]</span> 17:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
+*'''Agree''' - Agree with the reworded statement.  There is a strong sentiment against the placeholders. - [[User:Hahnchen|hahnch]][[User:Hahnchen/E|<font color="green">e</font>]][[User:Hahnchen|n]] 18:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
+*I disagree and wonder why everything goes immediately to a vote; what happened to back and forth editing and discussion. If you think it is necessary to have a written conclusion to the first stage voting, then I will put my suggestion in the introduction at the top and encourage everyone to edit it to improve and take impasses to the talk page to hash out. [[User:DoubleBlue|<span style="color:darkblue;">'''Double'''</span><span style="color:blue;">Blue</span>]] ([[User talk:DoubleBlue|Talk)]] 18:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
+::I have amended the wording on the [[Template:Infobox_Person#Parameters|Personbox guideline]] to ''If an image is desired but not available, one may place [[:Image:Picture Needed.svg]] on the talkpage. The use of [[:Image:Replace this image male.svg]] and [[:Image:Replace this image female.svg]] is currently under discussion.'' This alerts people to the discussion and offers a working solution. <span style="border: 1px  #F10; background-color:cream;">'''[[User:SilkTork|<span style="font-family:Script MT; color:#1111AA; font-size:small;">SilkTork</span>]]''' *[[User talk:SilkTork|<sup>YES!</sup>]]</span> 18:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
+*There is already a Needs Photo option on [[:Template:WPBiography]] which goes on the talkpage of biography articles. The Placeholder is simply duplicating that. Hmm. <span style="border: 1px  #F10; background-color:cream;">'''[[User:SilkTork|<span style="font-family:Script MT; color:#1111AA; font-size:small;">SilkTork</span>]]''' *[[User talk:SilkTork|<sup>YES!</sup>]]</span> 18:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
+::I disagree that it is duplication. The placeholder effectively puts an edit button in the infobox by linking to the special simplified upload page and showing where and how the photo can be placed. the reqfreephoto tag does none of that, it just says to those who go to the talk page that a photo would be helpful, which, in itself, is pretty unhelpful. [[User:DoubleBlue|<span style="color:darkblue;">'''Double'''</span><span style="color:blue;">Blue</span>]] ([[User talk:DoubleBlue|Talk)]] 19:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
+*'''Disagree''' with both. I firmly believe removing these harms the project. --[[User:Hammersoft|Hammersoft]] ([[User talk:Hammersoft|talk]]) 19:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
+*'''Agree''' -- but hardly seems to make a difference if I agree or disagree since the sides don't seem to have enough faith in the decision making process to not let this drag on forever.  This is beginning to look like Flagged Revisions, etc.: we've already had a long discussion, proposals !voted on, summarized etc.  Then the summaries are removed, !votes discounted, discussion called insignificant, etc.  Why should anyone believe that this second discussion be any different and actually reach a conclusion? -- [[User:Mscuthbert|Myke Cuthbert]] <small>[[User_talk:Mscuthbert|(talk)]]</small> 23:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
+**The decision making process on Wikipedia is [[WP:consensus]]. Having faith in the decision making process means participating in building a consensus, not [[WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY|pretending that a consensus has been achieved]]. Summaries have been moved, not removed. (If you have an objection to that, it is under discussion on the talk page.) What we are doing here is entirely consistent with the consensus process. !Votes have not been discounted. The only Proposal that had clear consensus was Proposal 2 (image placeholders should be revised). We may be able to do better than that and get rid of them entirely if we propose an alternative system that has strong support and will prove acceptable to opponents of Proposal 1. We are close to that now, as we appear to have DoubleBlue's support and possibly Cherryblossomtree. The prior discussion was not insignificant -- the objections and defenses of image placeholders that we clearly formulated are now the basis for the ongoing discussion. It's clear that this conclusion statement is not going anywhere. It is now a sideshow to the ongoing discussion that we should be having. So we can either sit here and talk in circles, or we can look at the proposed consensus solution (text-placeholders) to see if it is acceptable to the community. Your comments are welcome above.[[User:Northwesterner1|Northwesterner1]] ([[User talk:Northwesterner1|talk]]) 23:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
+***'''''Facts, please facts.''''' The discussion described as a "sideshow" was properly advertised throughout WP, not just as a centralized discussion but also on RFC, the Signpost and various Wiki Projects. It attracted over 50 participants and closed with unanimous agreement on 23 April. In contrast [[User:Northwesterner1|Northwesterner1]]'s group - which has so shambolically attempted to preempt the discussion - has ''only 6 members'' ([[User:Northwesterner1|Northwesterner1]], [[User:Peteforsyth|Pete]], [[User:DoubleBlue|DoubleBlue]], [[User:Jaksmata|Jaksmata]], [[User:Cherry blossom tree|Cherry blossom tree]], [[User:Jaksmata|Jaksmata]], [[User:Geni|Geni]]). --[[User:Kleinzach|Kleinzach]] ([[User talk:Kleinzach|talk]]) 00:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
+****I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. The discussion I described as a "sideshow" is this "Conclusion" section you have started here, which distracts from the process of working toward an actual resolution. So far it has 11 agree !votes and 15 disagree !votes. I have a hard time seeing what you intend to accomplish here. The only possible good I can see is that it may convince you that in fact the discussion has not concluded. The conversation under the "Moving Forward" section on this page is a continuation of rather than a "shambolic preemption" of the previous discussion. (Side question: By definition, how could we preempt something that you believe was over?) It's hardly "my group," and more editors have commented here than the 6 you mention. It continues to be a widely WP-notified discussion, still listed at [[WP:CENT]], [[WP:RFC]], and on everyone's watch page. I know you feel the page has gotten out of hand and has become hard to follow, but that's because you have not helped to structure the ongoing discussion but rather to interrupt it. You worked so hard to get us through this process, I have no idea why you've decided to sabotage it.[[User:Northwesterner1|Northwesterner1]] ([[User talk:Northwesterner1|talk]]) 00:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
+*****On 21 April [[User:Northwesterner1|Northwesterner1]] wrote '' "I also support a April 23 date for closing the discussion." '' How can the discussion be carrying on - after we have all announced that it is over? As for the charge of sabotage - that should be withdrawn. Personal insults - any kind of personalizing of the considerable problems here - are unhelpful. --[[User:Kleinzach|Kleinzach]] ([[User talk:Kleinzach|talk]]) 00:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
+****** Kleinzach, you made a similar accusation to me in email, about having a "group" that was trying to accomplish something here (which I take to be an accusation that there are some of us who have a shared and hidden agenda.) I'd like to state clearly that the notion is rubbish, at least as far as I'm concerned. You are the only person in this discussion with whom I've had private communications of any sort, on any topic. Apart from a handful of email messages between you and me, my entire contribution to this discussion is open for public scrutiny. The goals I've stated throughout the process are an accurate accounting of my motivation. -[[User:Peteforsyth|Pete]] ([[User talk:Peteforsyth|talk]]) 20:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
+****** Slight correction: I've had a few private communications with one of the editors involved in the preliminary discussion, but never on the topic of placeholders. -[[User:Peteforsyth|Pete]] ([[User talk:Peteforsyth|talk]]) 20:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
+*'''Abstain''' - Acknowledging the request for participants in the original discussion to approve or disapprove in an attempt to come to a conclusion, but in the circumstances I cannot feel comfortable with either agreeing or disagreeing.  Sorry.  -- [[User:LiniShu|Lini]] ([[User talk:LiniShu|talk]]) 01:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
+*'''Disagree''' - I see no consensus that "image placeholders should not be used on article pages". — [[User:Omegatron|Omegatron]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Omegatron|talk]]) 23:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
+*'''Abstain''' - The closing admin should ignore this consensus discussion on the conclusion. AfD and other discussion are not handled this way and this discussion should be no exception. There is plenty of discussion on Image placeholders above so that there is no need to agree upon what was agreed upon. [[User:GregManninLB|GregManninLB]] ([[User talk:GregManninLB|talk]]) 08:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
+===Summary===
-<outdent>'''Signpost article''': I pitched it [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Other|here]], it's technically past the deadline but I haven't gotten any response about whether that's a problem, and it seems that the content is still under discussion. On that page you will find a link to [[User:Peteforsyth/Imagedraft|my draft]]. I think if a couple other people endorse the draft (with some editing if you like, feel free), I think that would enhance the chances of it getting published. Just a hunch. -[[User:Peteforsyth|Pete]] ([[User talk:Peteforsyth|talk]]) 04:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
-:Thanks. I've done some editing. --[[User:Kleinzach|Kleinzach]] ([[User talk:Kleinzach|talk]]) 08:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
-::It appears well done to me; fair and balanced overview. [[User:DoubleBlue|<font color="darkblue">'''Double'''</font><font color="blue">Blue</font>]] ([[User talk:DoubleBlue|Talk)]] 14:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
+. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]], [[User:Wanderer57|Wanderer57]], [[User:Hiding|Hiding]], [[User:Voceditenore|Voceditenore]], [[User:Cacycle|Сасусlе]], [[User:MarnetteD|MarnetteD]], [[User:Astanhope|AStanhope]], [[User:Kaldari|Kaldari]], [[User:Guroadrunner|Guroadrunner]], [[User:Bobak|Bobak]], [[User:Hahnchen|Hahnchen]], [[User:Mscuthbert|Myke Cuthbert]], [[User:Kleinzach|Klenzach]], [[User:Wizardman|Wizardman]] (14) (Note: [[User:Wizardman|Wizardman]] added his name on 13 May)  agreed that the conclusion should be:
-==Question 1. [[WP:SELF]]: Are placeholders compatible?==
-For example, should we first look at whether the placeholders are incompatible with [[WP:SELF]]? --[[User:Kleinzach|Kleinzach]] ([[User talk:Kleinzach|talk]]) 07:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
-:They aren't unless you are going to try and argue for the deletion of stub notices.[[User:Genisock2|Genisock2]] ([[User talk:Genisock2|talk]]) 12:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
-:: I disagree with that comparison Genisock. Stubs are different in two very important ways. First, stubs are designed to draw the attention of editors to articles that are defficient in essential information. Photos however are not essential information and in my oppinion not necessary (although they are nice to have). Second, stubs are relatively unobtrusive by virtue of being small and at the bottom of articles. As a result, stubs are much less distracting and ad-like than the present image place holders. One of my major contentions with the proponents of these image placeholders is the assumption that articles without photos or graphics are somehow incomplete or inferior to articles with visual bells and whistles. Open any current encyclopedia and most of the articles contain no pictures. Tags are for the purpose of pointing out flaws and errors and I don't view the lack of a photo as a flaw. Tags also highlight problems that are usually fixed relatively quickly, so they ideally don't remain on articles very long. My concern is that these image place holders will become permanent fixtures on many articles. Also tags don't make appeals to readers (i.e. Do you have the ability to fix this?, Do you own one?) but simply state problems. The whole structure and look of this image is not like a tag or a stub but an advertisement which I think violates [[WP:SELF]].[[User:Nrswanson|Nrswanson]] ([[User talk:Nrswanson|talk]]) 13:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
-:::Template:expand is widely used and contians the phrase "Please help improve this article or section by expanding it" Template:expand is placed at the top of articles. Your argument about images would have ah more conviction if you had made it about 2 years ago during the fair use conflict. In any case open any encyclopedia and you will find what wikipedia would view as stubs. Tags are not a permanent fixture [[:Category:Cleanup from May 2006|evidences suggest otherwise]]."Please help improve this article or section by expanding it" looks like an appeal to readers to me. The image is not an advert in any way shape or form it is a request for help no more no less. WP:SELF is in any case an MOS guideline and can be ignored where there is reason to do so.[[User:Genisock2|Genisock2]] ([[User talk:Genisock2|talk]]) 14:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
-::::Again, I think you are making a false comparison. Template expand, as I understand it, is used only on articles where an appropraite stub is not available and is used to tag articles lacking essential information. Photos are not essential. Also, if a stub is available, then typically editors remove the Template expand and replace it with the stub as it is less encroaching on the article. The expansion tag also doesn't read and look like an add, even if it is a polite appeal. As for the fair use thing, I have only been a member of wikipedia for about 11 months so I don't see how that relates to me. And although there are tags that seem to have become permanent fixtures, I garauntee you that the ratio of cleanup tags placed to cleanup tags removed is astronomically better than the ratio of image placeholders put on articles to image placeholders removed will be. Which is scary comsidering how many image placeholders are already out there. [[User:Nrswanson|Nrswanson]] ([[User talk:Nrswanson|talk]]) 17:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
-:::::Your understanding of the expand template is incorrect. The placeholder does not read or look like an add either it is again an appeal. The fair use thing is important since it showed that there was a significant body of opinion that viewed articles without images as incomplete (or given the area you edit without sounds). Cleanup backlogs have over the last few years only got longer two year backlogs are starting to appear.[[User:Genisock2|Genisock2]] ([[User talk:Genisock2|talk]]) 19:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
-:'''Compatible'''. The images themselves do not refer to Wikipedia so I don't think it is against the SELF guideline, only if you click on it do you see a link to the special Wikipedia upload page. Wikipedia has always encouraged readers to help out by adding content, that is part of what is unique about it and sets it apart from other encyclopedia projects. [[User:DoubleBlue|<font color="darkblue">'''Double'''</font><font color="blue">Blue</font>]] ([[User talk:DoubleBlue|Talk)]] 21:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
-::The problem here is that '''the placeholder is in the most conspicuous, prominent position''' - top right actually inside the article body text - that's why [[WP:SELF]] becomes an issue here. It wouldn't be such a problem if the notice were moved outside the article to one of the edges of the page. --[[User:Kleinzach|Kleinzach]] ([[User talk:Kleinzach|talk]]) 22:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
-:'''The current image placeholders violate [[WP:SELF]] without question.''' [[WP:SELF]] says "don't use terms such as 'click here'". Our image placeholders say "please click here". Obviously that looks pretty stupid on printed versions of articles. In reply to someone's previous comment, stub notices also violate [[WP:SELF]], but that's a debate for another day. [[User:Kaldari|Kaldari]] ([[User talk:Kaldari|talk]]) 22:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
-::Not really. If we accept that WP:SELF is being ignored on a massive scale we change WP:SELF.[[User:Genisock2|Genisock2]] ([[User talk:Genisock2|talk]]) 23:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
-::I could be wrong but I believe infoboxes are supposed to use {{tl|Image class}} which suppresses the printing of placeholder images. [[User:DoubleBlue|<font color="darkblue">'''Double'''</font><font color="blue">Blue</font>]] ([[User talk:DoubleBlue|Talk)]] 23:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
-::: Good point, DoubleBlue. {{tl|Image class}} should absolutely be used on these "replace me" images. I had assumed it was, but checking now I see that it's not; the images print out. '''This should be corrected immediately, without waiting for this discussion to conclude; I would hope that nobody would argue that printouts of articles should contain these images?''' -[[User:Peteforsyth|Pete]] ([[User talk:Peteforsyth|talk]]) 00:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
-::: On a more general note, I would argue that cleanup/expand/notability/etc. notices are in violation of [[WP:SELF]], when used incorrectly. If a section is not neutral, the best thing to do is to remove it and put it on the talk page until consensus is reached; leaving a "NPOV" tag for months at a time violates [[WP:SELF]]. If an article needs expansion, a non-obtrusive stub tag at the bottom is sufficient, and an "expand" template up top is a violation of [[WP:SELF]]. If an article lacks inline citations for specific figures or controversial claims, that is a severe shortcoming that compounds if unaddressed, and is worthy of being noted in the article; not a violation of [[WP:SELF]].
-::: But there's a more compelling reason that these images violate the policy. In the examples above, the template serves a dual purpose: it advises potential editors of something they should consider doing, but it also serves as a ''cautionary note to readers who may never intend to become editors.'' If an article lacks a neutral voice, that may not be obvious to, say, a young reader unfamiliar with the subject. Likewise, some readers may not fully grasp the importance of citations, and drawing a significant lack of citations to the reader's attention may be important to their evaluation of the article. But these images serve no such purpose: the absence of a photo is ''entirely'' self-evident to any reader with functioning eyes. For those who have no desire to become contributors, or who don't own a qualifying photo, the image serves no informative purpose whatsoever. It may inform them a bit about how Wikipedia works, but it does not inform them about the subject they've looked up to study. That, in my view, violates [[WP:SELF]] in a more fundamental way than the examples I raised above. -[[User:Peteforsyth|Pete]] ([[User talk:Peteforsyth|talk]]) 00:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
-::::The same objection can be raised to stub templates - the fact that an article is very short is self evident but for people with no interest in expanding it the invitation to do so is useless. Like stub templates, however, these images have the potential to motivate and organise people who are interested in assisting. Which part of [[Wikipedia:Self-references to avoid]] do you feel this violates in a fundamental way? I'm afraid I can't find the section you refer to. --[[User talk:Cherry blossom tree|Cherry blossom tree]] 09:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
-::::: The sections ''Avoid referring to "Wikipedia", Community and website feature references, Writing about Wikipedia itself,'' and ''Articles are about their subjects'' all touch on this issue. I do believe that {{tl|stub}} templates violate the policy somewhat, but I'm not too concerned about that, since (1) there is broad and longstanding consensus around their use, (2) they are about as non-obtrusive as possible, being at the bottom of the article and consisting merely of a small quantity of text, and (3) they encourage an action (text expansion) that is technically possible for nearly any reader to perform, by visiting the library or reading a newspaper or something similarly accessible. None of those three conditions apply to the images at question; there is no visible consensus around their use, they are in the ''most'' conspicuous place and take up a lot of space, and only very specific readers (those with cameras and access to the person in question) have the ability to meet the request. -[[User:Peteforsyth|Pete]] ([[User talk:Peteforsyth|talk]]) 23:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
-::::::''Avoid referring to "Wikipedia"'' touches on this issue only tangentially - it focuses on the main article text, rather than site housekeeping notices. I can see no connection at all with regard to ''Writing about Wikipedia itself'' or ''Articles are about their subjects'' unless you take the section title out of context. If it has anything to say about image placeholders then it is in ''Community and website feature references'', which states: "an article which is still in its initial development or under dispute often will include {{tl|stub}}, {{tl|npov}}, {{tl|refimprove}}, or other maintenance tags to help editors further develop the article, and the text in these templates include self-references." As far as [[Wikipedia:Self-references to avoid]] is concerned, I think the discussion should focus on whether these templates consist of a valid exception as described there.
-::::::With regard to stub templates, (1) is a valid point, if inherently accepting of the status quo. It's not clear whether (2) is plus or minus point and (3) seems misleading. Stub templates appeal to a tiny minority of readers who potentially have any interest in becoming editors. Image placeholders also appeal to anyone who has ever taken a photo of the person in question, which with some public figures is probably a lot of people. I could also add (4) image placeholders encourage significant one-off contributions from people who will never become Wikipedians - contributions we would otherwise have little chance of getting. --[[User talk:Cherry blossom tree|Cherry blossom tree]] 19:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
+::Recommended: Image placeholders should not be used on article pages.
+::Recommended: Further discussions on systems to replace image placeholders for the purpose of soliciting images for articles are encouraged and should take place at [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Free images|Project Free images]] or another agreed location.
+. [[User:Garion96|Garion96]] (1) disagreed that the conclusion should be:
-I like it. Let's revise [[WP:SELF]] instead if that's what is stopping us - encouraging users to upload free images is a great thing! Also, I actually think the infoboxes look better with this image placeholder in it than without an image at all. Really. [[User:Jobjörn|Jobjörn]] ([[User talk:Jobjörn|talk]]) 00:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
+::Recommended: Image placeholders should not be used on article pages. ''But agreed that it should be'': Recommended: Further discussions on systems to replace image placeholders for the purpose of soliciting images for articles are encouraged and should take place at [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Free images|Project Free images]] or another agreed location.
-:I think we need to agree for this discussion not to talk about freely revising WP guidelines as if that is something we can do with a snap of our fingers. This discussion can't proceed unless we can agree on some basic guidelines that have strong consensus. And "we" have already agreed on [[WP:SELF]]. If you want to attempt to change it, that's great, but you need to do so BEFORE using a hypothetically new-and-revised [[WP:SELF]] as support in this discussion. (Otherwise, I could just say this image placeholder violates [[WP:RULE X]]. And if it doesn't, well then let's just go write [[WP:RULE X]]!) [[User:Northwesterner1|Northwesterner1]] ([[User talk:Northwesterner1|talk]]) 00:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
+. [[User:Northwesterner1|Northwesterner1]], [[User:Fishal|Fishal]], [[User:Peteforsyth|Pete]], [[User:Sceptre|Sceptre]], [[User:CComMack|CComMack]], [[User:BrownHairedGirl|BrownHairedGirl]], [[User:LtPowers|LtPowers]], [[User:Phil Sandifer|Phil Sandifer]], [[User:DoubleBlue|DoubleBlue]], [[User:Espresso Addict|Espresso Addict]], [[User:Jaksmata|Jaksmata]], [[User:Bkonrad|Bkonrad]], [[User:Hammersoft|Hammersoft]], [[User:Omegatron|Omegatron]] (14) disagreed with both conclusions.
-::WP:SELF is a guideline and a MOS guideline at that. Not policy.[[User:Genisock2|Genisock2]] ([[User talk:Genisock2|talk]]) 09:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
+. [[User:LiniShu|Lini]] and [[User:GregManninLB|GregManninLB]] (2) abstained.
-:::Yes, of course. I don't mean to suggest that WP:SELF is some kind of binding law. What I mean is that there is strong consensus behind it, and hypothetical discussions about what it may or may not say in the future if we were to try to change it don't really have any standing at the moment. The question of this section is, Does the placeholder box violate WP:SELF as it is currently written? End of story. If the answer is yes, then we have three options: change the guideline, change the placeholder, or ignore WP:SELF. But that's a different matter...
+. [[User:Northwesterner1|Northwesterner1]] proposed and [[User:DoubleBlue|DoubleBlue]] agreed:
-::::I'm sorry but I am not sure I understand about the authority/ non-authority of WP SELF. I don't mean to distract from the discussion here, so if someone would mine clarifying for me on my talk page I would appriciate it. Thank you.[[User:Broadweighbabe|Broadweighbabe]] ([[User talk:Broadweighbabe|talk]]) 06:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
+::'' "From 11 April to 23 April 2008, a centralized discussion considered the appropriateness of using "from-owner" image placeholders on biographies of living persons. A carefully structured discussion clarified the objections to this practice as well as its benefits. A proposal to remove the image placeholders received 66% support in a straw poll, demonstrating that there is significant opposition to the use of these placeholders, but not yet consensus to remove them entirely. Discussion now continues on how to improve the "from-owner" system, with or without image placeholders, and to draft guidelines for future uses of the system. Recommended: Editors should not add or remove placeholders from articles while this discussion continues. Editors should be notified that we are likely to recommend the removal of placeholders when we have an alternative system in place. Recommended: Discussion continues on this page. Participants should familiarize themselves with the previous discussion by reading the archive." ''
+I trust that is accurate. (If not please say so!) Thank you. --[[User:Kleinzach|Kleinzach]] ([[User talk:Kleinzach|talk]]) 00:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
-'''Opinion: No.''' The placeholder images are not compatible with [[WP:SELF]], and violate the letter and spirit of the guideline to a much greater degree than frequently used stub templates, citation templates, etc.[[User:Northwesterner1|Northwesterner1]] ([[User talk:Northwesterner1|talk]]) 09:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
+{{discussion bottom}}
+{{discussion top}}
+==Comment==
+:Why does everything turn to votes in your eyes? Just debate and alter and consider and revise till there's consensus. A little back and forth co-operation and compromise. [[User:DoubleBlue|<span style="color:darkblue;">'''Double'''</span><span style="color:blue;">Blue</span>]] ([[User talk:DoubleBlue|Talk)]] 01:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
+==Attempts to prevent archiving Conclusion section (immediately above)==
-'''Opinion: No.''' -- I begin by admitting that WP:SELF is somewhat flexible.  For instance, it is not violated by small "edit" tags within the article (reason: they're too unobtrusive to call attention to themselves).  Nor by cleanup tags placed for short periods of time that draw attention to major deficiencies within the article (reason: the risks to users of the article if the tags are missing outweigh the self-reference in the article), nor by one or two stub tags at the bottom of the article (reason: unobtrusive plus long-standing community consensus that predates and is more wide-spread than WP:SELF).
+I ask editors not to disrupt the perfectly normal procedure of archiving sections of this discussion as [[User:Peteforsyth|Peteforsyth]] has just done twice: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Centralized_discussion/Image_placeholders&diff=211988632&oldid=211987964 here] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Centralized_discussion/Image_placeholders&diff=212015680&oldid=212007258 here]. There's no reason to disrupt normal and uncontroversial processes. This section has been discussed and summarized. It's finished. It's over. It's pointless and frankly rather childish to try to prolong it. It's time to move on. Thank you. --[[User:Kleinzach|Kleinzach]] ([[User talk:Kleinzach|talk]]) 02:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
-The image placeholders don't seem to me to have a compelling reason for stretching WP:SELF--they are obtrusive, they do not call attention to deficiencies in an article (in fact, they're often automatically placed by people who don't know the subject enough to know if an image would help), and as we've seen in the discussion on the Female placeholder, there's certainly not enough widespread consensus that this tag is useful to use that as the reason to violate WP:SELF.
+==Advice to the closing admin from an uninvolved reader==
-To me, the image is the visual equivalent of adding this prose to an article, "Hi! Can anyone help me fill out the rest of the paragraph?  If so, just click the edit button at the top of the page, and add your ideas! Thanks!"  If this sounds more like something that belongs on the Talk page, then that's where this placeholder should go.  (Oops, don't we already have the "It is requested that a photograph be added to improve this article" talk page template?)  -- [[User:Mscuthbert|Myke Cuthbert]] <small>[[User_talk:Mscuthbert|(talk)]]</small> 20:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
-::Strangely readers don't look at talk pages much so little point in putting stuff aimed at them there. Incidentally what type of timescale are you using to get two years as a short period?[[User:Genisock2|Genisock2]] ([[User talk:Genisock2|talk]]) 01:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
+I have spent about a half hour reading some of this discussion.  There is no consensus to remove the placeholder images from articles as a rule.  There is consensus that the placeholder images are ugly and should be replaced with something better.  I assume that the parties to this discussion are working on improvements.
-:Geni's point about the stub templates seems to me on target - images are considered essential parts of articles and are a prerequisite for featured article status where images are available or expected to be so. [[User:Phil Sandifer|Phil Sandifer]] ([[User talk:Phil Sandifer|talk]]) 02:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
+I distinguish between placeholder images and spoiler templates, which were equally widespread at their heyday in about 40,000-50,000 articles, and where their removal caused even more controversy than this discussion.  I can honestly say that spoiler templates did not substantively improve the encyclopedia.  In contrast, placeholder images have improved the encyclopedia by encouraging users to upload free images.  There may be better ways to accomplish the same purpose, but the basic existence of placeholder images in articles is consistent with Wikipedia's core mission.
-:: I disagree. Photos are not essential. They are not a requirement for good article status for one thing and the issue here is largely the fact that people placing these images have no personal vested interest in the actual article itself having made no contributions to the article's content and in all likelihood not even having read them either.[[User:Nrswanson|Nrswanson]] ([[User talk:Nrswanson|talk]]) 05:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
-:::Are you suggesting the stub sorting group do?[[User:Geni|Geni]] 13:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
-'''Opinion: No.''' Per comments by Northwesterner1 and Mscuthbert. I do feel however, that this method of uploading photos is superior to earlier methods. It is a much less complicated and user friendly method. I think the real problem here is just the prominant position of the image on articles. Perhaps if we made the image smaller and moved it to the bottom of articles it would be better. I agree with genisock that people really don't read talk pages enough for it to be particularly useful there.[[User:Broadweighbabe|Broadweighbabe]] ([[User talk:Broadweighbabe|talk]]) 09:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
+I also agree that not every article about a living or dead person needs to have a free image.  To transclude these images indiscriminately on every article in [[:Category:Living people]] would be inadvisable.  Editors should use discretion to consider how likely it is that a free image will be found.  In other words, I support using placeholder images for famous people who make frequent public appearances, but not for private individuals who happen to have written a book or achieved notability in some other channel outside of public view.
-'''Opinion: No.''' The image request boxes are about Wikipedia; they are not about the subject of the article.  (Also they are "in-your-face', distracting and ugly, IMO.) Perhaps a discrete request for an image at the bottom of the article, as Broadweighbabe suggests.  [[User:Wanderer57|Wanderer57]] ([[User talk:Wanderer57|talk]]) 17:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
+Considering the weight of arguments on both sides, the two-thirds majority in favor of removing image placeholders from article space cannot be considered a consensus in my opinion.  Much of the opposition seems to be answerable by less drastic measures, namely, removing image placeholders from individual articles of private individuals where a free photo is unlikely to be found, and by improving the unappealing appearance of these images.  The next steps need to include a list of proposed alternative designs, and a guideline to be added at [[Wikipedia:Image placeholders]] to define which biographies should include image placeholders.
-'''Comment''' The image placeholders are unsightly, resembling advertisements found on commercial websites with for-profit motives. I doubt this debate would ever have erupted if many editors didn’t simply find the placeholder images to be distracting and unattractive, leading to scrutiny of whether they violate more “substantive” rules.  I think aesthetics suffice in and of themselves to do away with the placeholders.  To draw an analogy: in grammar, some object violently to split infinitives.  Others find them inoffensive, and at least some actively approve of them.  In formal writing, then, the most prudent practice is to eschew them simply to avoid distracting those readers who find them objectionable, to the detriment of the substantive point one is trying to make.  So, I think, it is here; if a substantial segment of the community (and, perhaps more importantly, the general readership) finds the placeholders a distraction or disfigurement, the better course is to follow a general rule of “avoid unless compelling reasons unique to a particular article counsel otherwise.” [[User:Drhoehl|Drhoehl]] ([[User talk:Drhoehl|talk]]) 23:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
-:English grammar allows split infinitives. If people wish to try and apply the rules of Latin grammar that is their problem.[[User:Genisock2|Genisock2]] ([[User talk:Genisock2|talk]]) 17:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
+I hope these comments will help the community and the closing administrator move forward toward a solution. [[User:Shalom|Shalom]] ([[User talk:Shalom|Hello]] • [[Special:Contributions/Shalom|Peace]]) 21:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
+*Excellent summary and well made points which I fully support. [[User:Hiding|Hiding]] <small>[[User talk:Hiding|T]] </small> 23:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
+*Thank you for taking the time to do this. That's helpful. --[[User:Kleinzach|Kleinzach]] ([[User talk:Kleinzach|talk]]) 23:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
-:I'm afraid your analogy doesn't make sense. Of course it makes sense to ignore split infinitives if there is no benefit to using them, but these image placeholders are not simply being used as a matter of preference. There is a clear goal to their use which is not achieved by not using them. --[[User talk:Cherry blossom tree|Cherry blossom tree]] 19:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
+{{discussion bottom}}
-'''Opinion: Don't care.''' They may not be fully compatible with the "letter of the law", but this isn't what that standard was supposed to be about. I think the analogy to stub templates is completely legitimate, and I think that having at least one image of a person is a close-to-essential portion of a bio, at least as important as having a precise date of birth (as against a "circa" or a year). - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] | [[User talk:Jmabel|Talk]] 18:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
-==Question 2. Are placeholders successful in soliciting pictures?==
-According to the figures provided [[Wikipedia:Centralized_discussion/Image_placeholders/Archive_1#Uses_of_related_images|here]] earlier, there are 50,789 articles that contain the placeholder. Apparently the placing has resulted in between 400 and 450 uploaded images (some presumably usable, some unusable - but that's another issue). Taking 450 as the figure, that gives us a success rate of about 0.9 of one percent.
-This invites two questions:
-#Is it really worth the effort involved in inserting the placeholder in ''so many'' pages when there is ''so little'' to be gained? and
-#Is it reasonable to display a distracting graphic on 100 pages for the sake of (perhaps) getting a picture on ''only'' one of them?
---[[User:Kleinzach|Kleinzach]] ([[User talk:Kleinzach|talk]]) 01:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
-:Yes and yes. How do you get to that 450? Is that including all the images already moved to Commons? [[User:Garion96|Garion96]] [[User talk:Garion96|(talk)]] 08:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
-:: I would like to ask a few questions on the statistics. First, is there a way to get statistics on how many photos are copywrite violations and do they include photos uploaded by editors who have placing this particular image tag? If so on the latter, than those photos should be thrown out of the count.[[User:Nrswanson|Nrswanson]] ([[User talk:Nrswanson|talk]]) 08:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
-:::The 450 is post filtering so few copyvios you are free to go looking for copyvios. Does not include images moved to commons and does not images uploaded by people placeing the images since they are going to tend to use the standard upload system. Number comes from 438 in [[:Category:Reviewed images of people replacing placeholders]] 18 in [[:Category:Reviewed images replacing placeholders]] and 6 in [[:Category:Reviewed images of buildings replacing placeholders]].[[User:Genisock2|Genisock2]] ([[User talk:Genisock2|talk]]) 09:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
-::::It's worth noting that many of those 450 are unusable for articles. I did a random sample of 30 images. None in that sample were obvious copyvios (looks like those have been successfully filtered out). But 8/30 were very low quality and were not being used in any articles ([[:Image:Ant_Phillips_small.jpg|example]]). Another 6/30 were what I would describe as moderately low quality; they were being used in articles, but in my opinion it would be better to have no photo at all ([[Dan Graham|example]]). That leaves 16 out of the 30 in my sample that were a genuine improvement to the article ([[Ford Falcon Cobra|example]]).[[User:Northwesterner1|Northwesterner1]] ([[User talk:Northwesterner1|talk]]) 09:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
-:::::Dan Graham image is improveable through messing with gammer and contrast.[[User:Genisock2|Genisock2]] ([[User talk:Genisock2|talk]]) 10:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
-::::::Which none of the editors watching the "''reviewed'' images" category has done in the two months since the image has been added to the article. (See also: [[Steven Erlanger]], [[Doug Stanhope]].) Back to my point: In my view, if you put the placeholder box up there, you should be responsible for making sure the resulting image actually improves the article.[[User:Northwesterner1|Northwesterner1]] ([[User talk:Northwesterner1|talk]]) 11:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
-:::::::The quality of the [[Steven Erlanger]] image wouldn't be acceptable on any other encyclopedia. --[[User:Kleinzach|Kleinzach]] ([[User talk:Kleinzach|talk]]) 11:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
-::::::::You have a better image? [[:Image:LoveHurts-128.jpg]] isn't so great either. Regular upload system there (ignore the obvious copyright problem for a second). You want to work on improving existing uploads be my guest.[[User:Genisock2|Genisock2]] ([[User talk:Genisock2|talk]]) 12:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
-:::::::::In my judgment, having a [[Steven Erlanger]] article with no image is better than an article with the image that is being used. Like any editor, I could just go to the article and delete it. However, the placeholder box makes me look like a jerk then. Am I supposed to restore the placeholder box to an article after a new user has already contributed an image?[[User:Northwesterner1|Northwesterner1]] ([[User talk:Northwesterner1|talk]]) 07:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
-::::::::::Are there any examples of good, normally publishable quality placeholder-uploaded photos (sharp, well-saturated, taken in good light etc.)?--[[User:Kleinzach|Kleinzach]] ([[User talk:Kleinzach|talk]]) 00:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
-:::::::::::Yes.[[User:Genisock2|Genisock2]] ([[User talk:Genisock2|talk]]) 01:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
-::::::::::::So please tell me where they are.--[[User:Kleinzach|Kleinzach]] ([[User talk:Kleinzach|talk]]) 12:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
-:::::::::::::There are loads of them in the categories posted above. Not Featured Picture Candidates, perhaps, but certainly usable. --[[User talk:Cherry blossom tree|Cherry blossom tree]] 15:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
-'''Opinion: Maybe.''' I think it's too soon to tell how well they will work in the long run. It's likely that yes, they will be successful in soliciting some pictures. However, so far the success ratio does not outweigh the negatives. Whatever the outcome of this discussion, I would like to see editors refrain from using AWB and other automated procedures to put placeholder images in a systematic way on a large number of articles. This should be a case-by-case judgment if it is used at all. An editor should have to stop, think, and read an article all the way through before judging whether a placeholder image is likely to be successful.[[User:Northwesterner1|Northwesterner1]] ([[User talk:Northwesterner1|talk]]) 10:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
-But this is the Wikipedia way. We also get a lot of "amateurish" writing, text copyright violations, etc. We deal with it because, in the long run, the encyclopedia is improving through encouraging ordinary people to contribute. There are many who think this will not work and that's fine, work on nupedia or whatever Larry Sanger is doing now. [[User:DoubleBlue|<font color="darkblue">'''Double'''</font><font color="blue">Blue</font>]] ([[User talk:DoubleBlue|Talk)]] 15:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
-'''Question(s)'''. Regarding the 450 or so uploaded images, exactly how do we know that they were uploaded ''because'' of the placeholder? How do we know that they wouldn't have been uploaded anyway? Of the hundreds of thousands (guessing) of free images currently in use on Wikipedia, how many were solicited by the use of a placeholder? [[User:PC78|PC78]] ([[User talk:PC78|talk]]) 23:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
-:Already answered. Because they overwhelmingly come from new users and because they were uploaded through the upload backend built into the image.[[User:Genisock2|Genisock2]] ([[User talk:Genisock2|talk]]) 00:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
-::That's not an answer, as both points are irrelevant. I don't see why it matters that images were uploaded by new users. Had the placeholder not been there, the images could just have easily been uploaded via the normal means. [[User:PC78|PC78]] ([[User talk:PC78|talk]]) 01:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
-:::If new users chose to upload a way that can only be triggered by clicking on an image don't you think it might just be posible that the image had something to do with their decision to upload? If it didn't I would expect to see upload via other means. As for the claim "just have easily been uploaded via the normal means". [[:de:Wikipedia:WikiProjekt Benutzerfreundlichkeit/Test Februar 2006|Well no]].[[User:Genisock2|Genisock2]] ([[User talk:Genisock2|talk]]) 01:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
-::::If the placeholder hadn't been there, they would have had no choice. But it's there, so it's used. That doesn't mean that it's in any way necessary. You also haven't addressed my other question. Since Wikipedia already has an abundance of free images, doesn't that suggest that we're doing just fine without a placeholder? [[User:PC78|PC78]] ([[User talk:PC78|talk]]) 01:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
-:::::Wikipedia has an abundance of free images? Hmm how many UK MPs do we have pic of? Do you really want to try and mentian that claim? Do you have any evidence for your initial assertion?[[User:Genisock2|Genisock2]] ([[User talk:Genisock2|talk]]) 06:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
-:::::: Cut Genisock some slack PC78. There is absolutely no way that he can prove or disprove whetehr someone would have uploaded or not uploaded a photo. That line of thinking is like playing the what if game and you can what if forever and not get anywhere. I think it just best to look at the data we have and look at its success at solicitating photos without trying to make comparisons with older methods which is frankly impossible to do.[[User:Broadweighbabe|Broadweighbabe]] ([[User talk:Broadweighbabe|talk]]) 09:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
-:Every attempt at statistics seems to have ignored the issue of time. It may be that 0.1% of these templates have produced an image, but that's 0.1% over a certain period of time. Before we can make any meaningful decisions based on our knowledge we need to know what that period is. 450 images per decade is very different tp 450 images per year or 450 images per month. This will probably be difficult to work out since I presume that the templates weren't all added at the same time but until something is at least estimated then talk of numbers seems unproductive. --[[User talk:Cherry blossom tree|Cherry blossom tree]] 09:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
-::I don't know. Stats are short by a lot of those image requests being added  rather recenty and older images getting moved to commons.23:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
-'''Opinion: Yes.''' I would think this would be a no brainer question to answer. I think that this will help to bring photos to wikipedia articles, particularly from readers who don't normally contribute to wikipedia. However, I do take to heart those concerned about particular articles never receiving photos and having permanent image tags, and those who dislike on mass placement of such tags. I would say that image tags should be dated and then removed after a certain period of time.[[User:Broadweighbabe|Broadweighbabe]] ([[User talk:Broadweighbabe|talk]]) 09:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
-*'''Probably No''': the placeholder image currently functions like a cleanup tag--it implies that there's something wrong with the article that needs to be fixed.  Let's go with the 1% figure (though it might be lower).  If only 1% of "wrong" articles are fixed, it implies for me that the cleanup tag isn't doing its job and should be more targeted (for instance, only on articles of major public figures where one would expect many people to have pictures of).  If only 1% of stubs ever got out of stub status, I would agree with getting rid of the stub template.  Put another way: 99% of all articles with these images will have them marring the top of the page for the foreseeable future.  That to me is an unacceptable number. -- [[User:Mscuthbert|Myke Cuthbert]] <small>[[User_talk:Mscuthbert|(talk)]]</small> 20:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
-**By the way: with all the anti-image placeholder comments I've made, I think I do owe the pro-side the applause thanking them for trying to get more images on Wikipedia.  I think it's a great goal, and I think that the text greeting someone upon clicking the image is extremely clear.  I think that  the Upload File tools are still inadequate and can certainly be improved based on some of the ideas raised here.  My objection to the current means is not an objection to the ends.
-***I second this applause. [[User:Northwesterner1|Northwesterner1]] ([[User talk:Northwesterner1|talk]]) 20:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
-**(I also might be in the tiniest of all minorities in believing that WP should use its dominant position on the internet to use selected advertisements in order to raise enough money to purchase the license of high-quality photographs/drawings/etc. of important subjects currently lacking encyclopedia quality images (or sound or movie clips).  But this is a complete aside.) -- [[User:Mscuthbert|Myke Cuthbert]] <small>[[User_talk:Mscuthbert|(talk)]]</small> 20:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
-:::The cost of buying complete rights to such photos tends to be rather high. Assume one million revinue from advertiseing you would be lokking at maybe 5000 pics top probably a lot less. In terms of cost benifit buying images is probably less effective per image than buying wikipedians with high quality cameras tickets for second division football matches or paying for them to attend political events with multiple politicians present Small scale pop concerts would still be worthwhile but getting a decent pic under those conditions is hard.[[User:Geni|Geni]] 23:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
-::The problem is that low profile people are the ones we need help on. High profile a visit to Flikr or pokeing some wikipedians in the right area will generaly yield a result (Ian Thorpe excluded).[[User:Geni|Geni]] 23:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
-'''Comment''' Most readers would not be able or willing to help; the box detracts from the article for the vast majority of readers, while being useful for only a very few. Rather than disturb the manual numbering of sections, ''supra'', I'm inserting this material here, "out of order"; if anyone prefers to put it in its "correct" place, feel free to make adjustments as necessary. As one still rather wet behind the ears, I agree completely with this proposition.  I’d add a further point: if these placeholders are to be a routine part of a basic article, they become just one more “WikiComplexity” the beginning editor (yup, like me!) must master on the road to making “satisfactory” contributions, i.e., contributions that don’t immediately draw massive, and rather dispiriting, cleanup intervention from other editors and a phalanx of dutiful bots.  While I think everyone recognizes that mastering basic skills—setting up headings, links, and references, for example—is necessary up to a point, we should avoid throwing needless distractions at those who simply want to make a positive contribution with a minimum of fuss.  Again speaking personally, I have no clue how to append an image, placeholder or otherwise, to an article, and I’ve never needed to know.  I really have no desire to sink time into learning how just so that I can equip each stub I create with an image announcing that there’s no image for this article (rather the graphical equivalent of “this page intentionally left blank”).  Nor do I consider it a good use of resources for others, who could be writing substantive articles, to spend their days sticking such images into articles that already exist.
-Now, all that said, I gather that the placeholder images link to a streamlined process for submitting pictures.  That does strike me as a useful feature, and I’d fully support a template that one could add to the bottom of an article, in text only, pointing to that routine and reading along the lines of “If you have a copyright-free image pertinent to this article, you can add it by clicking ((here)).” [[User:Drhoehl|Drhoehl]] ([[User talk:Drhoehl|talk]]) 23:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
-'''Comment''': [[User:Drhoehl|Drhoehl]] has a point. Something less obtrusive might be better, but they do seem to serve a useful function. That function might be even better fulfilled if there were a WikiProject for people to try to acquire images (either by taking photos themselves or by acquiring rights.) - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] | [[User talk:Jmabel|Talk]] 18:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
-===Another concern: genuineness of images===
-I am not sure where to put this comment so I will make it here. How do we know that the images being uploaded are actually of the subjects that the uploaders say they are? Checking the accuracy of photos is much more difficult than checking the factual accuracy of written information. Of course this is a potential problem on wikipedia already, but by advertising for photos aren't we just inviting vandalism? And vandalism much more difficult to catch at that for individuals with not much media exposure. Many of the people I have written articles on don't even have images available in media sources on-line and they now have image placeholders on them.[[User:Nrswanson|Nrswanson]] ([[User talk:Nrswanson|talk]]) 10:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
-:I think this concern is overstated. Wikipedia loves to invite vandalism -- we put featured articles on the main page every day just to watch them get boxed around -- and I think that's a good thing. And the steps involved in uploading a fake photo to an article are a little more complex than the steps involved in writing "poo." But I take your point that errors in an article are hard to catch when other editors don't have fact-checking eyeballs on them. This is another reason why I don't believe the placeholders should be uploaded to 50,000 articles by a few editors, unless those editors plan to dedicate themselves to having 50,000 articles on their watchlists, checking the results. When I put a "citation needed" tag on an article, I do it deliberately and judiciously, and then I watch that article to see how it is addressed. The same should apply to editors who feel that a photo is needed.[[User:Northwesterner1|Northwesterner1]] ([[User talk:Northwesterner1|talk]]) 10:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
-::I review every uploaded image so that covers the watching part. So far there have been about 2 images uploaded with false claims of who they were of.[[User:Genisock2|Genisock2]] ([[User talk:Genisock2|talk]]) 10:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
-:::And do you know that for sure? Do you know the real physical appearance of every other person that has had a picture uploaded? And can you realistically monitor 50,000 plus articles? I didn't think so.[[User:Nrswanson|Nrswanson]] ([[User talk:Nrswanson|talk]]) 11:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
-::::I can realistically monitor every image uploaded through the system. Now can you say the same about our regular uploads? Upload patrol of regular uploads missed say [[:Image:Alexis bledel.jpg]] Do you want those turned off as well? Frankly if you want to upload problematical images then regular upload is a far better option. Just watch [[Special:NewImages]] go by for a while. Fromowner is not a major problem.[[User:Genisock2|Genisock2]] ([[User talk:Genisock2|talk]]) 12:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
-:::::I don't like the idea of one editor being solely responsible for something like that. If this system is really viable it should have several sets of eyes.[[User:Nrswanson|Nrswanson]] ([[User talk:Nrswanson|talk]]) 05:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
-::::::Anyone can monitor and clean-out [[:Category:Images of people replacing placeholders]] [[User:DoubleBlue|<font color="darkblue">'''Double'''</font><font color="blue">Blue</font>]] ([[User talk:DoubleBlue|Talk)]] 06:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
-:::::: It is possible that vandalism will occur but that is part of the nature of wikipedia. I don't really think that the possibility for vandalism is a good arguement against image placeholders.[[User:Broadweighbabe|Broadweighbabe]] ([[User talk:Broadweighbabe|talk]]) 09:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
-:Is there any evidence to actual prove that those placeholder images are soley responsible for those 450 image uploads? Is that above the norm for the usual amount of uploads? Did image uploads in general increase during the time? Etc etc. [[User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[User talk:Collectonian|talk]]) 15:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
-::The uploads came through the system built into the images and almost all came from new users. We know that new users find wikipedia's standard upload system very hard to use.[[User:Genisock2|Genisock2]] ([[User talk:Genisock2|talk]]) 16:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
-::: I agree that the upload system is unduly complex, and is in desperate need of a redesign. This upload form is a big improvement, but perhaps it could still be improved upon. Maybe we should have a section of this discussion specifically about the upload form and how it works; it would be good to see the form incorporated into the image upload system in other ways, or maybe even replace present system, after some discussion. -[[User:Peteforsyth|Pete]] ([[User talk:Peteforsyth|talk]]) 16:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
-::::Can't be because the general upload system has less control over how people get there and has do do a wider range of things (I worked on both systems there is a reason they are so different).[[User:Genisock2|Genisock2]] ([[User talk:Genisock2|talk]]) 01:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
-:::: Too bad I like the system genisock invented for uploading photos. Thank you by the way. It is much more user friendly.[[User:Broadweighbabe|Broadweighbabe]] ([[User talk:Broadweighbabe|talk]]) 06:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
-::::: Yes, thank you, Genisock2, for your work on both systems. My opinion is that both are very good, but could use significant improvement. In broad strokes, I think the main system could be improved by asking questions in a different order, to simplify the end-user's experience. I don't think this is the right forum to do a detailed critique of the system, but I'd love to participate in a revamp in the future. -[[User:Peteforsyth|Pete]] ([[User talk:Peteforsyth|talk]]) 23:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
-What does this point have to do with the placeholders? [[User:Phil Sandifer|Phil Sandifer]] ([[User talk:Phil Sandifer|talk]]) 02:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
-:I agree - this seems to be less of a concern for these placeholders than it would be for images at large. --[[User talk:Cherry blossom tree|Cherry blossom tree]] 09:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
-===Another concern: Legality of images===
-Looking through [[:Category:Images of people replacing placeholders]] it seems that a very large number of these uploaded images have no source listed or are tagged as possible copyright violations. The professional, almost tabloid quality of many of these images ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Annette2.jpg][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Allison_mack.jpg][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ceridwen_Dovey_author.jpg ][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ceupicture.jpg]) suggests to me that many people are simply replacing the placeholder image with pictures they’ve copied from other websites. Do the placeholder images encourage people to upload unfree images without first learning Wikipedia image policies? --[[User:S.dedalus|S.dedalus]] ([[User talk:S.dedalus|talk]]) 03:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
-:This has already been covered. Every image uploaded through this process is checked for copyright (note that all the examples you linked to (other than the one that's been deleted, which I can't comment on) were tagged on the day they were uploaded and are currently going through the deletion process.) If you want to discuss whether making it easier for people to upload images makes it easier for them to upload copyvios then the answer is obviously yes, but this is an inherent problem with making your website editable. In the context of copyvios throughout Wikipedia this is nothing. --[[User talk:Cherry blossom tree|Cherry blossom tree]] 08:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
-::Where has this been discussed already? No, I believe the problem is the ambiguity of the words “free” and "own" in an internet couture where copyrighted music is regarded as “free.” Perhaps if these images are kept they should be made much more explicitly clear. People who come here frankly don’t know what they’re doing. Also those five images had copyright tags because I intentional chose tagged images. There are hundreds of other untagged vios there. --[[User:S.dedalus|S.dedalus]] ([[User talk:S.dedalus|talk]]) 19:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
-:::Nah not hundreds total 250 in that cat of which most are either drifting towards deletion (particularly the more obvious vios) or follow up is being done on. But either way not to significant. See you see the system allows for filtering and the post filtered images can be found at [[:Category:Reviewed images of people replacing placeholders]].[[User:Genisock2|Genisock2]] ([[User talk:Genisock2|talk]]) 19:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
-==Question 3. Is a biography without a photo of its central subject inadequate?==
-'''Opinion:no.''' Advocates for the placeholder boxes tend to phrase this question differently. They say, "Is an article without a photo ''incomplete''? Obviously, yes. Therefore, there's nothing wrong with airing our dirty laundry on the article page." I say, of course, you're absolutely right. But that's irrelevant. Every Wikipedia article is ''incomplete''. However, just because an article is incomplete doesn't mean it's ''inadequate''. We put templates on articles when their incompleteness is a problem that should be pointed out to experienced editors and first-time readers. When an article is lacking footnotes, it's inadequate. When an article has a POV bias, it's inadequate. When an article, has such severe cleanup issues that its content not up to a baseline Wikipedia standard, it's inadequate. But lacking a photo does not in itself make an article inadequate. We don't put garish templates on biography articles saying, "This article lacks information on the subject's life during the crucial missing years between age 22 and age 47. If you can provide information on these years, please click here." -[[User:Northwesterner1|Northwesterner1]] ([[User talk:Northwesterner1|talk]]) 08:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
-:Actually, we more or less do. {{tl|expand-section}} does what you suggest, albeit not with such comic precision. What do we mean by inadequate? Purely things that don't comply with fundamental Wikipedia policies? That would also apply to stub templates. But really this is all irrelevant - no-one is arguing that the purpose of these placeholders is to inform the reader that we have no image. Their aim is to improve the article by soliciting donations of images. --[[User talk:Cherry blossom tree|Cherry blossom tree]] 09:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
-::One of the objections raised in the overview above is that the placeholder boxes suggest that articles without images are inadequate; therefore, I think the question is relevant. You can define "inadequate" however you like. That's the point of the discussion in this section. I define it like this: serious citation problems (yes), serious POV problems (yes), serious content shortages (sometimes), lacking a photo (usually not).[[User:Northwesterner1|Northwesterner1]] ([[User talk:Northwesterner1|talk]]) 09:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
-:::In that case I think you're asking the wrong questions. "Should that inadequacy be noted in the article?" is irrelevant because no-one is arguing that it should be. I think more appropriate questions would be "Are image placeholders inherently pointing to an article's inadequacy?" and "Is this an acceptable side effect?". --[[User talk:Cherry blossom tree|Cherry blossom tree]] 14:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
-::::I've dropped the second part of the question. The first part is still worth answering, as it has been used by supporters of the image placeholders as a rationale for their use.[[User:Northwesterner1|Northwesterner1]] ([[User talk:Northwesterner1|talk]]) 18:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
-'''Opinion:no.''' Per Northwesterner's definition I would say that most articles are not inadequate without a photo. However, I do think quality photos highly improve articles and soliciting for photos is not a bad thing if done in a way that does not detract from the article in question.[[User:Broadweighbabe|Broadweighbabe]] ([[User talk:Broadweighbabe|talk]]) 09:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
-This has been settled as a matter of policy - [[Wikipedia:Featured article criteria]] explicitly mandates "images where appropriate" as a criteria for feature darticle status. Images are thus viewed as necessary additions to an article. [[User:Phil Sandifer|Phil Sandifer]] ([[User talk:Phil Sandifer|talk]]) 15:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
-:Phil, featured articles represent "our very best work." Articles that do not meet the featured article criteria are not considered inadequate. -[[User:Northwesterner1|Northwesterner1]] ([[User talk:Northwesterner1|talk]]) 18:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
-::The goal is for all articles to become featured article quality. Until they are, they're not good enough yet. They may be good enough to host, but they're still considered to have major problems that need to be fixed. And if they don't have an image where one would be appropriate then that is a major problem that needs to be fixed before the article is at our goal level of quality. [[User:Phil Sandifer|Phil Sandifer]] ([[User talk:Phil Sandifer|talk]]) 19:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
-:::That's the point -- A "not good enough yet" article is not the same thing as an article with major problems. You can't pretend this has been settled as a matter of policy. [[User:Northwesterner1|Northwesterner1]] ([[User talk:Northwesterner1|talk]]) 19:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
-::::Not good enough yet is a major problem. If you find an article that is not good enough yet, you should try to fix it. [[User:Phil Sandifer|Phil Sandifer]] ([[User talk:Phil Sandifer|talk]]) 19:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
-:::: I think you are overstating the imporatance of feature article guidelines Phil. [[Wikipedia:Good Article]] status does not require photos, and the purpose of good article status is to decide what articles are adequate and which ones are not. In my opinion Good Article criteria is the standard of an adequate article on wikipedia. Feature article status is for the next level up. And not every article is capable of reaching feature article quality by virtue of it's subject matter. Certain topics, although notable, are rather limmited in amount of content.[[User:Broadweighbabe|Broadweighbabe]] ([[User talk:Broadweighbabe|talk]]) 19:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
-:::::Good articles were created as a benchmark on the way to featured article because FAC was an unmanageable tarpit. They are not an endpoint. And, notably, the featured article criteria (as opposed to actual featured article status) does not exclude articles based on topic. Any article that can advance beyond the point of being a stub can meet the featured article criteria. Any that do not do so have serious problems that should be rectified. [[User:Phil Sandifer|Phil Sandifer]] ([[User talk:Phil Sandifer|talk]]) 19:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
-::::::In my view, featured article and good article criteria have nothing to do with whether an article is adequate. [[Celilo Falls]] is B-class. [[Sho Dozono]] is Start-class. They are both adequate. They do not have major problems. [[Sho Dozono]] is a living person biography lacking a photo, but to put a placeholder template on it would suggest that the article is inadequate and that it has major problems. That is just simply not the case. [[User:Northwesterner1|Northwesterner1]] ([[User talk:Northwesterner1|talk]]) 19:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
-::::::: Well I think the good article criteria on wikipedia (although only a guidline) is an unbiased standard through which we can answer the above question. Since Good Article criteria does not require a photo than I think it is inferred that the lack of a photo does not make an article inadequate. That is the question asked isn't it?[[User:Broadweighbabe|Broadweighbabe]] ([[User talk:Broadweighbabe|talk]]) 19:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
-:::::::: I agree with your point "GA does not require a photo; thus, an article without a photo is not necessarily inadequate." I disagree with the corollary "Articles less than GA are inadequate." [[User:Northwesterner1|Northwesterner1]] ([[User talk:Northwesterner1|talk]]) 19:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
-:::::::::Really? I have trouble agreeing with his point, since [[Wikipedia:Good article criteria]] EXPLICITLY REQUIRES AN IMAGE. [[User:Phil Sandifer|Phil Sandifer]] ([[User talk:Phil Sandifer|talk]]) 19:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
-::::::::::First, read the footnotes: "The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement for Good articles." They are only required if free images are readily available. Second, [[WP:CIVIL|Don't shout]]. [[User:Northwesterner1|Northwesterner1]] ([[User talk:Northwesterner1|talk]]) 19:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
-:::::::::::Free images are assumed to be available for any living person of any notability. The question is whether we have them on Wikipedia. But because we assume they are available we do not allow non-free images for this purpose. As for shouting, I am happy to stop shouting. In return, I ask that you please not be wrong. [[User:Phil Sandifer|Phil Sandifer]] ([[User talk:Phil Sandifer|talk]]) 19:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
-::::::::::::Good articles of notable living persons without images of their central subjects: [[Dan Dworsky]], [[Ralph Bakshi]], many more. It took me about sixty seconds to find them. You're a charming fellow.[[User:Northwesterner1|Northwesterner1]] ([[User talk:Northwesterner1|talk]]) 20:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
-:::::::Inadequate is the wrong word. We try to improve every article. Even FA don't lose their <code>edit</code> tags. [[User:DoubleBlue|<font color="darkblue">'''Double'''</font><font color="blue">Blue</font>]] ([[User talk:DoubleBlue|Talk)]] 19:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
-::::::::You're circling back to my first point in this section by trying to substitute a standard of ''incomplete.'' Yes, all articles are incomplete. However, articles without an image are not inadequate. The placeholder boxes suggest that the articles are inadequate. Ergo, the placeholder boxes are a problem. [[User:Northwesterner1|Northwesterner1]] ([[User talk:Northwesterner1|talk]]) 19:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
-:::::::::There are also a plethera of articles on living people granted good article status without photos. And I disagree with the supposition that photos of all notable living people are easily obtained. In my particualar area of interest (theater) which you think would be an easy area to obtain photos, there are a number of what I call one hit wonders who earned a Tony or a Drama Desk Award and the njust disappeared. They did one notable thing and then poof! It's hard to find photos on people like that which are not copywrite violations.[[User:Broadweighbabe|Broadweighbabe]] ([[User talk:Broadweighbabe|talk]]) 20:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
-'''Opinion: in most cases no.''' Per Northwestern and Broadweighbabe. I would like to say that in some cases a lack of photo would be inadequate if the subject is extremely well known such as President Bush or Hillary Clinton. However, it is my opinion that the majority of articles do not fall into this category.[[User:Nrswanson|Nrswanson]] ([[User talk:Nrswanson|talk]]) 22:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
-'''Opinion:no.''' Photographs are very rarely essential to an article, unlike a diagram or a map which may convey information that is difficult to put into words. In all but a few cases a photo represents either an asset to an article (if it looks good and helps the overall design and look of the page) or a liability (if it is a poor image and detracts from the look of the page). One of the problems with the placeholder system is that it implies an uncritical box-ticking attitude. We expect articles to be written in good English, with correct grammar and spelling etc, but when it comes to photos we accept out-of-focus, unsaturated, crooked etc images. Visual illiteracy should be as unacceptable as verbal illiteracy IMO. --[[User:Kleinzach|Kleinzach]] ([[User talk:Kleinzach|talk]]) 22:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
-'''Opinion, supported by GA and FA criteria: No.''' The [[WP:GA?|Good article]] and [[WP:FA?|Featured article]] criteria state that an article should be "…illustrated, where possible and appropriate, by images" and have "…images and other media where they are appropriate to the subject," respectively, but do not make images a necessary element for approval. The GA criteria state specifically in a footnote: "The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement for Good articles. However, if images (including other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then they should be used."
-It's trivially easy to find [[WP:GA|Good articles]] that are biographies of living people, and lack images of their central subjects. [[WP:FA|Featured articles]] tend to be better in this regard, but [[Austin Nichols]] lacks a photo; the FA review apparently judged the article to be of excellent quality even without an image, but the "No free image" initiative disagreed, and placed the placeholder image on the page. The FA process has far more credibility in my view.
-I would contend that no article that has been approved as GA or FA should have self-referential templates expressing substandard article quality. By extension, "missing elements" that do not prevent GA or FA status should not be noted within ''any'' article. -[[User:Peteforsyth|Pete]] ([[User talk:Peteforsyth|talk]]) 23:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
-:*'''Comment''' The criteria do not just apply to photos but to other kinds of illustration as well, see [[Wikipedia:Images]]. Diagrams and maps can be very important - often far more so than photos. --[[User:Kleinzach|Kleinzach]] ([[User talk:Kleinzach|talk]]) 00:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
-:::Perhaps but diagrams and maps of people are kinda tircky.[[User:Geni|Geni]] 13:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
-::Austin Nichols. Hmm last comment on the review made on november 21st 2006. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Austin_Nichols&oldid=89196944 notice something]?[[User:Geni|Geni]] 17:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
-===Subquestion: Do the placeholder boxes suggest that articles are inadequate?===
-'''Opinion: Yes.''' [[User:Northwesterner1|Northwesterner1]] ([[User talk:Northwesterner1|talk]]) 20:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
-'''Opinion: Yes.''' [[User:Nrswanson|Nrswanson]] ([[User talk:Nrswanson|talk]]) 22:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
-'''Opinion: Yes.''' This is emphasized by the position of the placeholder in the body of the article. --[[User:Kleinzach|Kleinzach]] ([[User talk:Kleinzach|talk]]) 22:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
-'''No''', it says it can be improved in the same way the edit buttons say it. [[User:DoubleBlue|<font color="darkblue">'''Double'''</font><font color="blue">Blue</font>]] ([[User talk:DoubleBlue|Talk)]] 21:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
-===Subquestion: Is the suggestion of inadequacy an acceptable side effect?===
-'''Opinion: Maybe.''' But given the other problems with the placeholder boxes, the side effects pile up pretty quick. [[User:Northwesterner1|Northwesterner1]] ([[User talk:Northwesterner1|talk]]) 20:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
-'''Opinion: Yes and no.''' Per my comment above, in cases where photos are not a glaring ommission (which is most articles) I would say that the use of the image tag is unacceptable by virtue of it suggesting inadequacy. On those articles where a photo could reasonably be assumed as a given then I have no problem with the use of the tag. But I would venture to say that any article that really needs a photo on wikipedia already has one.[[User:Nrswanson|Nrswanson]] ([[User talk:Nrswanson|talk]]) 22:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
-'''Opinion: No.''' There are a negligible number of articles where the lack of a photograph is so significant that it should have priority over the general appearance of the article itself. --[[User:Kleinzach|Kleinzach]] ([[User talk:Kleinzach|talk]]) 23:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
-===Subquestion: Do past discussions about fair use vs. free images indicate consensus that images are necessary? ===
-Proponents of the image/form have, in a couple places, claimed that past discussions involving free vs. fair use images indicate a consensus that free images are necessary elements of a Wikipedia biography. I find this difficult to accept. Although I was not a participant in those discussions (and have not seen a link to them), it seems to me that the following two positions are logically independent:
-* Free images are vastly preferable to fair use of non-free images. Inclusion of non-free images reduces the incentive to upload free images, so it should be discouraged.
-* Free images are necessary to biographical articles.
-The subjects of these two discussions seems so divergent, that I'm not sure it's possible to conclude anything useful about prior consensus from the fair use debate.
-If I'm misunderstanding the connection, please correct me, with a link to a past discussion that better captures the issue. -[[User:Peteforsyth|Pete]] ([[User talk:Peteforsyth|talk]]) 18:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
-:What you missed was that rather a lot of the oposition to removal of unfree images was due to complaints that it would leave the articles without images.[[User:Geni|Geni]] 18:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
-:: Oh, I see what you're saying. But I'm still unconvinced that this is relevant to the present discussion. People will have a certain reaction to seeing something removed, even if there's good reason for the removal. That is a special case, and should not be taken as an an expression of the general consensus on whether articles should have images in general. We're in a better position to explore and evaluate that consensus now, rather than recycling something from a different situation. -[[User:Peteforsyth|Pete]] ([[User talk:Peteforsyth|talk]]) 19:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
-::: I agree. I don't think that discussion is relevant to this one at all.[[User:Nrswanson|Nrswanson]] ([[User talk:Nrswanson|talk]]) 09:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
-*'''Opinion:No''' I agree with Pete & Nrswanson; these are separate issues, and the inferences that can be drawn from the past discussion about relevant points here are tenuous at best.[[User:Northwesterner1|Northwesterner1]] ([[User talk:Northwesterner1|talk]]) 19:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
-==Question 4. Placeholders and Wikipedia 'style': are they compatible?==
-Of all the questions debated in the original discussion this was the most polarized. Those in favour of placeholders claimed they emphasized the self-help, community-based, free content nature of WP. The pro-placeholders were unapologetic. [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] said  '' "this image does . . . hammer home that free content is what we're about" '' , while [[User:Phil Sandifer|Phil Sandifer]]'s view was that '' "Wikipedia articles are unfinished, messy things, and reminding our readers of this is no sin on our part." ''
-Anti-placeholder editors stressed how ugly and inappropriate they thought the boxes. [[User:Doncram|doncram]]'s comment summed this up: '' "they look bad, it makes the article look unprofessional, it detracts from my contributions to the text." '' And for some editors the boxes were worse than ugly: they were adverts imitating those on commercial sites such as IMDB. As [[User:Northwesterner1|Northwesterner1]] said: '' "The image looks like (and acts like) an advertisement".''
-Is any kind of compromise possible here? Everybody (so far) has assumed that WP should have overall policies applicable to the whole encyclopedia, but is this realistic when standards vary so much from subject to subject - should we be more pragmatic about this whole thing?--[[User:Kleinzach|Kleinzach]] ([[User talk:Kleinzach|talk]]) 00:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
-:What exactly are you suggesting Kleinzach? That we have one set of rules for one part of wikipedia and another set of rules for other parts? If so, I don't like that idea at all. I personally have no problem with a photo uplink "click here link" on the main article as long as it is unobtrusive to the article itself, which would involve moving the image to somewhere else than its current location. I think that would be an appopriate compromise.[[User:Nrswanson|Nrswanson]] ([[User talk:Nrswanson|talk]]) 09:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
-::My intention was to highlight (arguably) the most contentious issue of the original debate to see whether we could move beyond the 'I love it/I hate it' statements, however a day has passed without any comment so I obviously didn't succeed in optimally framing the question. My suggestion of 'horses for courses' was meant as a point of departure. What is important here is your opinion! --[[User:Kleinzach|Kleinzach]] ([[User talk:Kleinzach|talk]]) 09:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
-:::Y'know, I'm all for having one set of rules for one part of Wikipedia and another set of rules for other parts. I think that in the last year or two Wikipedia has become over-legalistic and inclined to favor uniformity over doing what works. "...it is evidently equally foolish to accept probable reasoning from a mathematician and to demand from a rhetorician scientific proofs." (Aristotle, ''Nichomachean Ethics''). - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] | [[User talk:Jmabel|Talk]] 18:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
-==Ideas for modification==
-[[Image:Replace this image1.svg|30px]] [[:Image:Replace this image1.svg|Replace this image1.svg]]? [[User:DoubleBlue|<font color="darkblue">'''Double'''</font><font color="blue">Blue</font>]] ([[User talk:DoubleBlue|Talk)]] 14:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)<small>P.S. I'm not actually proposing using this image, just answering a previous question about a gender-neutral version. [[User:DoubleBlue|<font color="darkblue">'''Double'''</font><font color="blue">Blue</font>]] ([[User talk:DoubleBlue|Talk)]] 14:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)</small>
-*Yes, I would prefer that were the universal placeholder, regardless of gender. (Although I share others' concerns about size and placement position). --'''[[User:Padraic|Padraic]]''' 22:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
-*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. -- [[User:Mscuthbert|Myke Cuthbert]] <small>[[User_talk:Mscuthbert|(talk)]]</small> 20:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
-**Surely there's a way to come up with a gender-neutral image? What about the above one do you think privileges males? --'''[[User:Padraic|Padraic]]''' 22:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
-:* 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.[[User:Nrswanson|Nrswanson]] ([[User talk:Nrswanson|talk]]) 22:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
-::Fantastic suggestion. --'''[[User:Padraic|Padraic]]''' 23:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
-:::*I don't understand the gender bias issue. There are male/female/unisex versions. [[Image:Replace this image.svg|30px]] [[:Image:Replace this image.svg|Replace this image.svg]] is a camera, though. [[User:DoubleBlue|<font color="darkblue">'''Double'''</font><font color="blue">Blue</font>]] ([[User talk:DoubleBlue|Talk)]] 00:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
-*:::: 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.[[User:Nrswanson|Nrswanson]] ([[User talk:Nrswanson|talk]]) 00:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
-:::::*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? [[User:DoubleBlue|<font color="darkblue">'''Double'''</font><font color="blue">Blue</font>]] ([[User talk:DoubleBlue|Talk)]] 01:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
-::::::Let's turn this around: What good reason is there to include gender in the placeholder? What is lost by using the camera image? --'''[[User:Padraic|Padraic]]''' 02:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
-::::::*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. [[User:DoubleBlue|<font color="darkblue">'''Double'''</font><font color="blue">Blue</font>]] ([[User talk:DoubleBlue|Talk)]] 03:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
-::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.  -- [[User:Mscuthbert|Myke Cuthbert]] <small>[[User_talk:Mscuthbert|(talk)]]</small> 03:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
-::: 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.[[User:Nrswanson|Nrswanson]] ([[User talk:Nrswanson|talk]]) 09:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
-::::Is there an actual person who is offended by a person image or is this a imagined possibility? [[User:DoubleBlue|<font color="darkblue">'''Double'''</font><font color="blue">Blue</font>]] ([[User talk:DoubleBlue|Talk)]] 21:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
-::::: 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.[[User:Broadweighbabe|Broadweighbabe]] ([[User talk:Broadweighbabe|talk]]) 21:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
-::::::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". [[User:DoubleBlue|<font color="darkblue">'''Double'''</font><font color="blue">Blue</font>]] ([[User talk:DoubleBlue|Talk)]] 22:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
-*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. --[[User:Kleinzach|Kleinzach]] ([[User talk:Kleinzach|talk]]) 23:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
-'''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.[[User:Nrswanson|Nrswanson]] ([[User talk:Nrswanson|talk]]) 09:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
-::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?[[User:Geni|Geni]] 13:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
-:::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?[[User:Broadweighbabe|Broadweighbabe]] ([[User talk:Broadweighbabe|talk]]) 14:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
-::::the image is an SVG it doesn't really have a size.[[User:Geni|Geni]] 14:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
-::::: 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.[[User:Broadweighbabe|Broadweighbabe]] ([[User talk:Broadweighbabe|talk]]) 14:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
-:::::: 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? -[[User:Peteforsyth|Pete]] ([[User talk:Peteforsyth|talk]]) 15:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
-:::::::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]].[[User:Genisock2|Genisock2]] ([[User talk:Genisock2|talk]]) 15:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
-:::::::: 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.[[User:Broadweighbabe|Broadweighbabe]] ([[User talk:Broadweighbabe|talk]]) 16:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
-:::::::::Evideces?[[User:Geni|Geni]] 18:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
-::::::::::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.[[User:Broadweighbabe|Broadweighbabe]] ([[User talk:Broadweighbabe|talk]]) 21:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
-:::::::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. --[[User talk:Cherry blossom tree|Cherry blossom tree]] 19:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
-===The Text===
-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? --[[User talk:Cherry blossom tree|Cherry blossom tree]] 19:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
-: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. --'''[[User:Padraic|Padraic]]''' 20:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
-::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).[[User:Genisock2|Genisock2]] ([[User talk:Genisock2|talk]]) 20:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
-:*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 "[[:Image:No free image - woman.svg|If so, please add one]]" and make the phrase ''appear'' to be a clickable link (i.e. underlined blue). [[User:DoubleBlue|<font color="darkblue">'''Double'''</font><font color="blue">Blue</font>]] ([[User talk:DoubleBlue|Talk)]] 20:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
-===The Ratio===
-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? --[[User talk:Cherry blossom tree|Cherry blossom tree]] 19:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
-: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.[[User:Nrswanson|Nrswanson]] ([[User talk:Nrswanson|talk]]) 09:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
-===Location===
-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. --[[User talk:Cherry blossom tree|Cherry blossom tree]] 19:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
-: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]]).[[User:Genisock2|Genisock2]] ([[User talk:Genisock2|talk]]) 20:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
-::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.[[User:Broadweighbabe|Broadweighbabe]] ([[User talk:Broadweighbabe|talk]]) 21:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
-:::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.[[User:Genisock2|Genisock2]] ([[User talk:Genisock2|talk]]) 22:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
-:::: I disagree. It is the first thing that my eyes are drawn to.[[User:Broadweighbabe|Broadweighbabe]] ([[User talk:Broadweighbabe|talk]]) 22:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
-:::::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. --[[User:Kleinzach|Kleinzach]] ([[User talk:Kleinzach|talk]]) 22:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
-::::::Do you have any evidence of this happening ever?[[User:Genisock2|Genisock2]] ([[User talk:Genisock2|talk]]) 00:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
-:::::::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.[[User:Nrswanson|Nrswanson]] ([[User talk:Nrswanson|talk]]) 09:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
-::::::::While it is posible 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.[[User:Geni|Geni]] 13:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
-:::::::::No. The image creates an infobox when it is placed where one didn't exist before.[[User:Nrswanson|Nrswanson]] ([[User talk:Nrswanson|talk]]) 15:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
-::::::::::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?[[User:Geni|Geni]] 15:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
-:::::::::::I probably am lol. Well whatever it is the thing is still way too big and that is where your attention is drawn.[[User:Nrswanson|Nrswanson]] ([[User talk:Nrswanson|talk]]) 18:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
-::::::::::::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.[[User:Genisock2|Genisock2]] ([[User talk:Genisock2|talk]]) 18:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
-: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. [[User:DoubleBlue|<font color="darkblue">'''Double'''</font><font color="blue">Blue</font>]] ([[User talk:DoubleBlue|Talk)]] 14:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
-::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. [[User:Nrswanson|Nrswanson]] ([[User talk:Nrswanson|talk]]) 18:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
-:::and it has already been explained why that won't work. See step 4 of [[MediaWiki:Uploadtext/en-placeholder-people]].[[User:Genisock2|Genisock2]] ([[User talk:Genisock2|talk]]) 19:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
-::::''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. [[User:Northwesterner1|Northwesterner1]] ([[User talk:Northwesterner1|talk]]) 20:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
-:::::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.[[User:Nrswanson|Nrswanson]] ([[User talk:Nrswanson|talk]]) 20:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
-::::::What resolution monitor are you useing?[[User:Genisock2|Genisock2]] ([[User talk:Genisock2|talk]]) 20:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
-=='''Proposals'''==
-I am adding this section to allow editors who have formulated an opinion about the issues above to comment on concrete solutions. The discussion in the sections above should continue, of course; but I want to make sure we have a space to capture the "vote" of editors who have read through the question statement and the discussion and have an opinion about a concrete course of action. Keep your opinions in this section succinct. '''If Proposal 1 passes, Proposals 2 and 3 are void. If all proposals fail, then the placeholders images will be retained as is.''' If you believe the placeholders should be retained as is, just note "disagree" under each proposal.[[User:Northwesterner1|Northwesterner1]] ([[User talk:Northwesterner1|talk]]) 02:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
-===Proposal 1: Placeholder images should not be used at all on the main page of articles===
-''If this proposal passes, we edit style guidelines to explicitly disapprove the use of these images on article pages. We also remove the placeholder images from articles where they are currently in place and/or move them to talk pages.''
-*'''Agree.''' Per concerns in the discussion above and in the [[Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Image placeholders/Archive 1#Proposal to suspend all further use of this graphic on article pages|archived discussion]]. [[User:Northwesterner1|Northwesterner1]] ([[User talk:Northwesterner1|talk]]) 02:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
-*'''Agree''' I am on record on other discussion pages about my dislike of these place holders. [[User:MarnetteD|MarnetteD]] | [[User talk:MarnetteD|Talk]] 03:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
-*'''Agree''' I remain unconvinced by the rationale for inclusion, and the reasons for exclusion are too important to ignore. [[User:Cygnis insignis|Cygnis insignis]] 04:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
-*'''Disagree''': Useful as a placeholder and inviting contributions. [[User:DoubleBlue|<font color="darkblue">'''Double'''</font><font color="blue">Blue</font>]] ([[User talk:DoubleBlue|Talk)]] 04:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
-*'''Agree''': Per discussion above and in the [[Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Image placeholders/Archive 1#Proposal to suspend all further use of this graphic on article pages|archived discussion]].[[User:Nrswanson|Nrswanson]] ([[User talk:Nrswanson|talk]]) 05:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
-*'''Agree.''' per discussion. --[[User:S.dedalus|S.dedalus]] ([[User talk:S.dedalus|talk]]) 06:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
-*'''Maybe.''' As the image placeholder is now I would say no. I do think that a much less conspicuous image at the bottom of articles could be designed and used. I am definitely for having something on the main article. [[User:Broadweighbabe|Broadweighbabe]] ([[User talk:Broadweighbabe|talk]]) 09:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
-*'''Agree.''' Per concerns in the discussion above and in the [[Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Image placeholders/Archive 1#Proposal to suspend all further use of this graphic on article pages|archived discussion]]. --[[User:Kleinzach|Kleinzach]] ([[User talk:Kleinzach|talk]]) 11:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
-*'''Agree.''' Prefer the less-instrusive [[:template:reqphoto]] on talk pages. --'''[[User:Padraic|Padraic]]''' 13:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
-*'''Agree.''' I see the benefits of using these images to request free images, but for millions of readers these placeholders give no  information and are just intrusive. [[User:Rettetast|Rettetast]] ([[User talk:Rettetast|talk]]) 13:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
-*'''Disagree'''. As above. [[User:Jobjörn|Jobjörn]] ([[User talk:Jobjörn|talk]]) 13:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
-*'''Disagree''' - They help. [[User:Garion96|Garion96]] [[User talk:Garion96|(talk)]] 14:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
-*'''Disagree'''. Ludicrous position. [[User:Phil Sandifer|Phil Sandifer]] ([[User talk:Phil Sandifer|talk]]) 15:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
-*'''Agree''' -- [[User:Mscuthbert|Myke Cuthbert]] <small>[[User_talk:Mscuthbert|(talk)]]</small> 20:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
-*'''Agree''' Placeholders distract attention from the text, take up screenspace, and give an amateurish look. Much like the high school yearbooks where people who missed the photo session are represented by silhouettes labeled ''Camera Shy''.  [[User:Wanderer57|Wanderer57]] ([[User talk:Wanderer57|talk]]) 22:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
-::Such images appear on profession sites.[[User:Genisock2|Genisock2]] ([[User talk:Genisock2|talk]]) 17:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
-::You gave your views. I gave mine. Do you want a debate about what I think of the placeholders?  [[User:Wanderer57|Wanderer57]] ([[User talk:Wanderer57|talk]]) 20:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
-*'''Agree''' per discussion above. [[User:Lexicon|Lexicon]] <small>[[User talk:Lexicon|(talk)]]</small> 03:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
-*'''Agree''' Do not object to tag soliciting free image, with link to WP project page that contained the "click here" svg; but do object to the use of the placeholder image.[[User:LiniShu|Lini]] <small>[[User talk:LiniShu|(talk)]]</small> 04:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
-::Why?
-*'''Agree''' This is a case of editors forgetting that tens of millions of non-editor "civilians" use the Wikipedia every day.  "No Free Image. Please click here if you have one" is non-sensical to the vast majority of people using the Wikipedia - people like my MOM, for example.  A biographical article does not REQUIRE an image to be complete.  Attempting to entice non-editors into participating in one of the most legally sensitive copyright issue that we face editing the Wikipedia poses its own issues.  How much editorial time is consumed deleting images that aren't properly licensed?  This was a cute idea that some well-intentioned editors didn't think through and took to far and now we're suffering as a result.  It will be best practice for the Wikipedia to stop using this silly come on and move along to more serious and valuable editing.  --[[User:Astanhope|AStanhope]] ([[User talk:Astanhope|talk]]) 22:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
-*'''Agree'''. Intrusive and ugly on the article page. Prefer use of "photo required" option within the WP Biography talk page template, or some other talk page solution. [[User:Espresso Addict|Espresso Addict]] <small>([[User talk:Espresso Addict|talk]])</small> 08:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
-::Can you show that that has any effectiveness in getting images from readers at all?[[User:Genisock2|Genisock2]] ([[User talk:Genisock2|talk]]) 17:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
-::: Genisock2, ''something'' about Wikipedia's approach, before your form, was pretty effective, because lots of free photos were uploaded before your form existed. Whether or not Espresso Addict mentioned the very most effective approach here doesn't seem too important to me. -[[User:Peteforsyth|Pete]] ([[User talk:Peteforsyth|talk]]) 18:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
-*'''Disagree''' These placeholders have generated many free photos. Editors almost uniformly think photos of article subjects are necessary, judging by fair use battles. It is ludicrous to allow style guidelines to trump an effective way of building the encyclopedia. Many people who have photos may not be regular contributors, so they won't check the talk page for notices or even think to upload one if they have it. This is a way to let that one random guy who has a photo of some celebrity help out. I prefer the picture over the tag because I think it is less intrusive than an all-the-way-across-the-top banner. [[User:Mangostar|Mangostar]] ([[User talk:Mangostar|talk]]) 13:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
-*'''strongly agree''' Plus, the banner needn't be placed at the top of the page. [[User:Voceditenore|Voceditenore]] ([[User talk:Voceditenore|talk]]) 21:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
-*'''Agree.''' They're disruptive. [[User:Sandstein|Sandstein]] ([[User talk:Sandstein|talk]]) 21:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
-*'''Agree.''' They violate [[WP:SELF]] and are not really that useful. How many more out-of-focus fan snapshots do we need anyway? [[User:Kaldari|Kaldari]] ([[User talk:Kaldari|talk]]) 01:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
-:The majority of images received through the system are not out of focus.[[User:Genisock2|Genisock2]] ([[User talk:Genisock2|talk]]) 02:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
-*'''Agree.'''  It is quite clear that an article with no image could use an image.  There is no need to put an empty box there to remind anyone of the fact.  -- [[User:Ssilvers|Ssilvers]] ([[User talk:Ssilvers|talk]]) 02:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
-::Can you show this is the case for readers? Particularly when you consider that readers will find our existing upload system hard to use.[[User:Genisock2|Genisock2]] ([[User talk:Genisock2|talk]]) 03:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
-*'''Agree'''. Existing text templates suffice. [[User:NVO|NVO]] ([[User talk:NVO|talk]]) 10:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
-*'''Agree'''. --<font color="forestgreen">[[User:GuillaumeTell|'''Guillaume''']]</font><font color="blue">[[User talk:GuillaumeTell|''Tell'']]</font> 16:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
-====Side Comments====
-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. [[User:Northwesterner1|Northwesterner1]] ([[User talk:Northwesterner1|talk]]) 19:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
-:[[meta:Polls are evil]].[[User:Genisock2|Genisock2]] ([[User talk:Genisock2|talk]]) 03:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
-:: But we are not doing "evil polling" as defined by that article Genisock. We actually are discussing the issues and the way polling questions are written in this case, allows for a wide array of opinions. That is why there are so many different polling questions. You just don't like the way the discussion is going because the current consensus is against the current image placeholder. You are obviously intelligent and knowledgable but you are behaving like a spoiled child and your snide condescending remarks are unfruitful to this discussion.[[User:Nrswanson|Nrswanson]] ([[User talk:Nrswanson|talk]]) 09:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
-:::You jumped straight into voteing before any reasonable amount of discussion took place and are now not only objecting to attempts to debate but throwing around ad-homs.[[User:Geni|Geni]] 13:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
-::::Nrswanson was one of the earliest contributors to the discussion on this page, 45 minutes after the first edit by Genisock2.  [[User:Wanderer57|Wanderer57]] ([[User talk:Wanderer57|talk]]) 16:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
-:::::And look how little time it took to go from that to voteing.[[User:Geni|Geni]] 16:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
-::::::Don't forget the archived discussion above that was over several days.[[User:Broadweighbabe|Broadweighbabe]] ([[User talk:Broadweighbabe|talk]]) 16:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
-:::::::A few days amoung a limited highly selected group. Not very long.[[User:Geni|Geni]] 16:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
-::::::::That "limited highly selected group" had 32 people participating. I'm not sure what the number is here, but it's not much more. [[User:Northwesterner1|Northwesterner1]] ([[User talk:Northwesterner1|talk]]) 17:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
-:::::::::Genisock I don't recall you saying anything negative to Kleinzach about his ideas when he proffered them either on this page or the previous one. You were given plenty of time and opportunity to participate in the development of the structure of this discussion. I don't see how, therefore, you can complain. You were given a perfectly good opportunity to air such concerns beforehead. My suspicion is that if the discussion was going the other way you wouldn't be screaming that the structure of this debate is unfair.[[User:Nrswanson|Nrswanson]] ([[User talk:Nrswanson|talk]]) 17:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
-::::::::::I don't recall a vote being proposed so early in the proceedings. Can you show where it was suggested?[[User:Genisock2|Genisock2]] ([[User talk:Genisock2|talk]]) 17:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
-:::::::::::It wasn't. I just [[WP:BOLD|did it]] -- perhaps unwisely -- but in good faith.[[User:Northwesterner1|Northwesterner1]] ([[User talk:Northwesterner1|talk]]) 17:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
-:::::::::Northwesterner1 are you denying that there was an active attempt to canvas past opponents?[[User:Genisock2|Genisock2]] ([[User talk:Genisock2|talk]]) 17:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
-::::::::::I'm not aware of any such attempt. Can you point me to where it occurred? The only canvassing that went on to my knowledge is stated above in the participation section -- broad wiki locations like RFC and past talk pages or wikiprojects where discussion about these images has happened (pro and con). That seems to me the point of a centralized discussion. Bring together all participants in previous discussions and let them know where the real deal is going down.[[User:Northwesterner1|Northwesterner1]] ([[User talk:Northwesterner1|talk]]) 17:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
-:::::::::::Zee wikiproject comments were hardly neutral.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Peregrine_Fisher&diff=prev&oldid=204622839][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tizio&diff=prev&oldid=204618154].[[User:Geni|Geni]] 18:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
-::::::::::::[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Peregrine_Fisher&diff=prev&oldid=204622839] Is an attempt to figure out the best place to hold the debate, whether it should be at a WikiProject or RFC or WP:CENT. It's not a canvassing attempt. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tizio&diff=prev&oldid=204618154] is a canvas but I'll let Kleinzach speak for himself and others can decide whether it was good faith. Regardless, I think there has been broad publicity of this debate -- the vast majority of it, if not all of it, done in a neutral manner.[[User:Northwesterner1|Northwesterner1]] ([[User talk:Northwesterner1|talk]]) 18:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
-<unindent>By the way, I introduced the proposals section in order to '''broaden''' the discussion and help shape it, not to shut it down early. When I introduced the proposals in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Centralized_discussion/Image_placeholders&oldid=205251999 this edit], the discussion had been open for 48 hours, and there had already been significant debate on points #1 and #2 above, but the discussion at that point was limited to a small group of editors. I wanted to get it jumping again so that we could get a broader consensus. I had a feeling that many editors didn't feel they had much to say on the discussion points, since the [[Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Image placeholders/Archive 1|archived discussion]] had been so thorough and the main points for and against are summarized effectively in Pete & Kleinzach's question statement. I thought a broad group of editors would still like a chance to weigh in & I thought a series of clear action statements might do the trick. Since that time, I feel the discusssion in the sections above as well as the statements in the proposals section have been productive in moving us toward a consensus.[[User:Northwesterner1|Northwesterner1]] ([[User talk:Northwesterner1|talk]]) 17:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
-:"I believe the Proposal area is most useful when it doesn't become a back-and-forth" "I wanted to get it jumping again" you position appears to be internally inconsistent.[[User:Genisock2|Genisock2]] ([[User talk:Genisock2|talk]]) 17:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
-::Folks, there really wasn't an opportunity for Geni to object to the straw poll section. It was introduced, and started getting used, very quickly. (This is not to say NW1 did anything "wrong," leading a discussion like this is a complex business, and sometimes it's necessary to be bold.) I think Geni's concerns have some merit (although I don't think the early introduction of voting negates this entire process.) In response to his concerns, last night I simply removed my !vote. I'd encourage others to do the same, in the interests of a respectful discussion. If a straw poll is called later, with more consensus that it's an appropriate time, you can always re-add your !vote, which may have changed by then. -[[User:Peteforsyth|Pete]] ([[User talk:Peteforsyth|talk]]) 17:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
-:::Honestly Pete, I am not really sure if there is much more to discuss (at the moment anyway)... The only thing left to do is wait for others to read what has been said and for them to decide for themselves. As for canvasing, I don't see any evidence of that. I personally put several extremely neutral adds in high profile places such as the Community Portal to draw people's attention here. They simply stated what the discussion was about and said "all opinions welcome". [[User:Nrswanson|Nrswanson]] ([[User talk:Nrswanson|talk]]) 17:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
-::::I also agree that the discussion seems to have reached its logical course (except on the image modification section, in which case it might even be too early for that if we decide we don't want any image placeholders). The statement question is so thorough that it really doesn't leave us much to debate except to circle around the same issues. Hence, my proposals. But I have hidden them -- or attempted to hide them -- so that they do not become a distraction as we go forward. There is something wrong with my coding on the template... if anybody knows how to make those work, please help.[[User:Northwesterner1|Northwesterner1]] ([[User talk:Northwesterner1|talk]]) 18:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
-*I think you've hijacked the discussion at hand, [[User:Northwesterner1|Northwesterner1]] by archiving the discussion.  We had the discussion, some people didn't like it so it's been hidden, then what?  Forget that the discussion took place?  Out of bounds, man.  Please.  --[[User:Astanhope|AStanhope]] ([[User talk:Astanhope|talk]]) 18:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
-: I think that is an unfair accusation Astanhope. I was not part of the previous conversation but I actually went back and read it. There is a link to the archive at the very top of the page. You can't miss it! And I felt that Kleinzach did a great job summarizing the points made in that discussion for those who weren't as consciencetious as me. I personally found the debate through reading the community portal. I don't think anyone hijacked anything. Perhaps voting occured to soon but all and all I think things have been fairer than most debates I've seen.[[User:Broadweighbabe|Broadweighbabe]] ([[User talk:Broadweighbabe|talk]]) 18:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
-::Astanhope, sorry for the offense. Which action are you objecting to? Broadweighbabe seems to think you're referring to this [[Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Image placeholders/Archive 1|archived discussion]]. If that's the case, then there's no cause for concern, because the archived discussion occured on a different page than this one. It was a procedural discussion about whether to open a full discussion at a central location, which we're now doing. Now that we've opened the full discussion, the procedural move has been appropriately archived (and not by me). I'm assuming you're referring instead to my use of the [[Template:Hide|hide template]] (not an archive) to hide the straw poll in this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Centralized_discussion/Image_placeholders&oldid=205835175 edit]. Perhaps that was a premature step. I felt moderately justified in taking it since I introduced the straw poll in the first place, but I'll undo it. ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Centralized_discussion/Image_placeholders&oldid=205842781 Done].) Geni has a concern that the straw poll was premature. Pete suggests we all voluntarily remove our !votes, which seems a bit messy to me. I thought a reasonable step would be to use the hide template to hide the poll, and let the discussion above proceed. If the hide template is properly coded, it would have let us see the straw poll with a simple click of the "show" button. But I couldn't get the coding right. I'll step back now, and you all can decide what's best.[[User:Northwesterner1|Northwesterner1]] ([[User talk:Northwesterner1|talk]]) 18:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
-===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.''
-*'''Agree'''. (a) "Click here" text should be smaller; (b) image itself should be <s>smaller</s> used in a smaller thumbnail on articles; (c) images should be gender-neutral.[[User:Northwesterner1|Northwesterner1]] ([[User talk:Northwesterner1|talk]]) 02:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
-::again this size thing. Do you know what an SVG is?[[User:Genisock2|Genisock2]] ([[User talk:Genisock2|talk]]) 23:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
-*'''Agree''' [[User:Jeanenawhitney]] has created one here [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Infobox_actor#Recommend_placeholder_picture.3F] that I prefer to the current ones. [[User:MarnetteD|MarnetteD]] | [[User talk:MarnetteD|Talk]] 03:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
-*'''Neutral''': Present one meets my approval but a better one is possible. [[User:DoubleBlue|<font color="darkblue">'''Double'''</font><font color="blue">Blue</font>]] ([[User talk:DoubleBlue|Talk)]] 04:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
-*'''Agree''' I would suggest a stub like link at the bottom of pages.[[User:Nrswanson|Nrswanson]] ([[User talk:Nrswanson|talk]]) 05:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
-*'''Agree''' I think a smaller image located at the bottom of articles would be better.[[User:Broadweighbabe|Broadweighbabe]] ([[User talk:Broadweighbabe|talk]]) 09:35, 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.[[User:Genisock2|Genisock2]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:Kleinzach|Kleinzach]] ([[User talk:Kleinzach|talk]]) 11:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
-*'''Agree'''. Gender neutrality, please. --'''[[User:Padraic|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. [[User:Rettetast|Rettetast]] ([[User talk:Rettetast|talk]]) 13:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
-*'''Neutral'''. The basic design is fine, but tinker away. [[User:Phil Sandifer|Phil Sandifer]] ([[User talk: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. -- [[User:Mscuthbert|Myke Cuthbert]] <small>[[User_talk:Mscuthbert|(talk)]]</small> 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. [[User:Espresso Addict|Espresso Addict]] <small>([[User talk:Espresso Addict|talk]])</small> 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.) [[User:Mangostar|Mangostar]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Voceditenore|Voceditenore]] ([[User talk:Voceditenore|talk]]) 21:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
-::Except it has already been explained why this won't work.[[User:Geni|Geni]] 16:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
-*'''Agree.''' Much too "in-your-face" at present. [[User:Sandstein|Sandstein]] ([[User talk: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]]. [[User:Kaldari|Kaldari]] ([[User talk:Kaldari|talk]]) 01:38, 15 April 2008 (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. [[User:Northwesterner1|Northwesterner1]] ([[User talk:Northwesterner1|talk]]) 19:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
-:back and forth is kinda a requirement of logical debate.[[User:Genisock2|Genisock2]] ([[User talk: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.[[User:Northwesterner1|Northwesterner1]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User talk:Cherry blossom tree|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. --[[User:Kleinzach|Kleinzach]] ([[User talk:Kleinzach|talk]]) 15:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
-:::This is true, but then it makes no sense to have this discussion in that case. --[[User talk:Cherry blossom tree|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.[[User:Northwesterner1|Northwesterner1]] ([[User talk: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.[[User:Broadweighbabe|Broadweighbabe]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User talk:Cherry blossom tree|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.[[User:Northwesterner1|Northwesterner1]] ([[User talk: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.[[User:Nrswanson|Nrswanson]] ([[User talk: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.--[[User:Kleinzach|Kleinzach]] ([[User talk:Kleinzach|talk]]) 23:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
-<outdent> 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.
-* {{tl|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!"
--[[User:Peteforsyth|Pete]] ([[User talk:Peteforsyth|talk]]) 00:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
-::The former is only possible where infoboxes already exist. The latter well no exclamation marks please.[[User:Genisock2|Genisock2]] ([[User talk:Genisock2|talk]]) 18:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
-===Proposal 3: If placeholder images are retained, the method by which they are applied should be modified===
-''If Proposal 1 passes, this proposal is void. If Proposal 1 does not pass, but Proposal 3 does pass, then we will have a subsequent discussion about how the methods should change.''
-*'''Agree'''. (a) Placeholders should be applied only on a case-by-case basis by editors familiar with the articles; they should not be rolled out systematically; (b) placeholders should be removed after a reasonable period of time if no photo is forthcoming.[[User:Northwesterner1|Northwesterner1]] ([[User talk:Northwesterner1|talk]]) 02:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
-*'''Agree''' especially with item b of Northwesterner1's statment above. The current image policy is so restrictive that most pages will never be able to have a picture in the infobox. [[User:MarnetteD|MarnetteD]] | [[User talk:MarnetteD|Talk]] 03:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
-::Commons has 2,684,813 freely usable media files.[[User:Geni|Geni]] 18:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
-*'''Disagree'''. I don't believe they have been haphazardly added and see no reason to invent some kind of rule about who can add this image to article; editors who disagree with the addition can remove it or take it to the talk page. Northwesterner1's (b) proposal can come into effect upon our [[WP:DEADLINE|deadline]]. [[User:DoubleBlue|<font color="darkblue">'''Double'''</font><font color="blue">Blue</font>]] ([[User talk:DoubleBlue|Talk)]] 04:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
-*'''Agree''' Per Northwesterner1 above.[[User:Nrswanson|Nrswanson]] ([[User talk:Nrswanson|talk]]) 05:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
-*I raise the same objection I raised to the previous proposal. The question is far too vague to be of any use as it stands. We should discuss what changes might be useful (with reasons, which are lacking on this page) before agreeing or disagreeing with change as a general principle. --[[User talk:Cherry blossom tree|Cherry blossom tree]] 09:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
-*'''Agree''' and '''Disagree'''. I do think that image placeholders should be dated and removed after a certain period of time. However, I don't have a problem necessarily with mass placement. Editors can always remove such images from individual articles and discuss why on talk pages in such cases.[[User:Broadweighbabe|Broadweighbabe]] ([[User talk:Broadweighbabe|talk]]) 09:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
-*'''Agree''' Per Northwesterner1 above. I am strongly against mass placement. --[[User:Kleinzach|Kleinzach]] ([[User talk:Kleinzach|talk]]) 11:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
-::Errr Northwesterner1's statement is simply they position you cannot logical agree per it.[[User:Geni|Geni]] 18:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
-*'''Disagree''', per Doubleblue's comments. --'''[[User:Padraic|Padraic]]''' 13:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
-*'''Disagree'''. But mass placement should be discouraged, and it should be completely optional to use such images. [[User:Rettetast|Rettetast]] ([[User talk:Rettetast|talk]]) 13:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
-::It is always has been. No one is going to make you add them.[[User:Geni|Geni]] 18:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
-*'''Disagree'''. Like stub templates and maintenance tags, they should remain until the issue has been adressed (== an article has been added). Northwesterner1's (b) proposal is just wrong - if it is removed before an image has been uploaded, then what was the point of having it there in the first place? [[WP:DEADLINE]], again. [[User:Jobjörn|Jobjörn]] ([[User talk:Jobjörn|talk]]) 13:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
-*'''Disagree'''. I see no problems here. [[User:Phil Sandifer|Phil Sandifer]] ([[User talk:Phil Sandifer|talk]]) 15:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
-*'''Agree'''. Mass rollout by editors unfamiliar with the subject is inappropriate. Some types of biographical articles (eg actors, musicians, politicians) are far more in need of images than others (eg scientists, academics), and in some cases (eg living victims of crime, minors) pictures might be completely inappropriate. [[User:Espresso Addict|Espresso Addict]] <small>([[User talk:Espresso Addict|talk]])</small> 09:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
-::So far neither of those appears to have been a problem.[[User:Geni|Geni]] 18:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
-*'''Agree (kind of)''' per Espresso Addict - because sometimes images are inappropriate (minors/crime victims/etc), they should not be added by bot.  In all other cases, however, I would encourage editors to add away. Even people who might not have as great a need for a picture, it still adds to the article to have one. Many people are visual learners, so having an image at the top is beneficial wherever it is not an invasion of privacy. I don't think the request should be taken down after X number of days, because it's always possible someone with a picture will pop by. [[User:Mangostar|Mangostar]] ([[User talk:Mangostar|talk]]) 13:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
-*'''Agree''' Per Northwesterner1 above. [[User:Voceditenore|Voceditenore]] ([[User talk:Voceditenore|talk]]) 21:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
-*'''Agree''', there must be basic common sense, not a bot that requests photographs of a pharaoh who's been dead for the last 3000 years. There are cultures where images of (living) people were discouraged; there were cultures were most artifacts were lost for good; finally, there's always the question of reliable attribution. These should be excluded. [[User:NVO|NVO]] ([[User talk:NVO|talk]]) 10:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
-::Generaly the advice has always been to limit use to liveing people (3000 years would put us in the Third Intermediate Period which due to political upheaval would be rather tricky yes geting an image for other times in egyption history would be less of a problem).[[User:Geni|Geni]] 13:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
-====Side Comments====
-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. [[User:Northwesterner1|Northwesterner1]] ([[User talk:Northwesterner1|talk]]) 19:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
-:I however believe in logical debate rather than trying to trigger votes to early in the procedure.[[User:Genisock2|Genisock2]] ([[User talk:Genisock2|talk]]) 00:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
-:::" . . too early?" Could you check your spelling and grammar before you post? I try to read your comments but I often find them difficult, if not impossible, to understand. --[[User:Kleinzach|Kleinzach]] ([[User talk:Kleinzach|talk]]) 12:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
-::Are there any issues that you think have not been talked about? I think this debate has been quite fair and thorough.[[User:Nrswanson|Nrswanson]] ([[User talk:Nrswanson|talk]]) 09:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
-:::The debate has hardly started. For example we are yet to consider why you appear to be in direct opposition to the "empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license" part of the wikimedia foundation's mission.[[User:Genisock2|Genisock2]] ([[User talk:Genisock2|talk]]) 17:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
-::::I suggest you start this question as a new section, Geni. If you feel there is more to debate, you should take an active interest in shaping the conversation. I have a resounding answer to your new question: We're Not. But I look forward to seeing the debate play out in full. [[User:Northwesterner1|Northwesterner1]] ([[User talk:Northwesterner1|talk]]) 18:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
-:::::Argument by assertion is a logical fallacy.[[User:Genisock2|Genisock2]] ([[User talk:Genisock2|talk]]) 18:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
-::::::Argument by not opening a question for argument is a better strategy?[[User:Northwesterner1|Northwesterner1]] ([[User talk:Northwesterner1|talk]]) 18:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
-:::::::That would be a strawman.[[User:Genisock2|Genisock2]] ([[User talk:Genisock2|talk]]) 18:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
-::::::::Thanks for the education. Please find the logical error in this statement: Geni, if you feel that the debate has been insufficient and that a particular point hasn't been discussed, such as "Why are opponents of the placeholder image acting in direct opposition to the Wikimedia Foundation's stated philosophy?" please open a new section to discuss this question. [[User:Northwesterner1|Northwesterner1]] ([[User talk:Northwesterner1|talk]]) 19:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
-(outdenting).[[User:Genisock2|Genisock2]] wrote: ''For example we are yet to consider why you appear to be in direct opposition to the "empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license" part of the wikimedia foundation's mission.'' I  really don't understand this assertion, and frankly find it rather disingenuous. Nothing I have read here indicates that those of us who do not favour the mass imposition of these amateurish ghost pictures are in direct opposition to the Wikimedia Foundation's mission. We are contending that '''there are alternative ways of furthering that mission''' that are less obtrusive, less detrimental to the articles' presentation (and perception by readers), and more in keeping with producing a high quality encyclopedia  &ndash; presumably also one of the Foundation's key goals. Genisock2, it may well be that you think that the status quo is the '''only''' way to achieve the Foundation's goals. If so, fine, argue your case on that basis.  But please do not argue on the basis that disagreeing with your method constitutes opposition to the Foundation's goals. That is an unfair distortion, and not very conducive to reaching a consensus which [[User:Northwesterner1|Northwesterner1]], [[User:Kleinzach|Kleinzach]] and others have been trying to facilitate here. [[User:Voceditenore|Voceditenore]] ([[User talk:Voceditenore|talk]]) 21:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
-:"amateurish ghost pictures" Hmm you might want to take that up with Kleinzach who seemed to think they looked like stuff on commercial sites. "there are alternative ways of furthering that mission" indeed their are but since they are not mutually exclusive with the placeholder image method that doesn't actually provide you with a case. "less detrimental to the articles' presentation" Actually given that one aspect of good presentation tends to be uniformity of style they improve it. "and perception by readers" no evidence has been provided for this claim. Wikipedia is a work in progress. Acquiring free images is part of that progress So even a slight drop in quality now is worth it for free images in the long run. You also might want to read the [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Mission_statement foundation's mission statement]. Responding to an attempt to increase the amount of free content with in effect variations on the theme of [[WP:IDON'TLIKEIT]] does in fact fall into the category of opposing the foundations goals. This is why any case you make must be logic and evidence based rather than emotion based.[[User:Genisock2|Genisock2]] ([[User talk:Genisock2|talk]]) 21:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
-::Um... "amateurish" and "commercial" are not mutually exclusive. ;-)  IMDb is a prime example. If ''"one aspect of good presentation tends to be uniformity of style"'', then why not have a uniform alternative method of soliciting free-content? I had already read the [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Mission_statement foundation's mission statement], thanks. However, I see nothing in it which is incompatible with what many of us have been arguing here. Continually citing [[WP:IDON'TLIKEIT]] is a distortion of what we have been saying here, as is your continued assertion that only one postion is a 'logical' one. In any case, I'll be away from my desk for the next week, so I'm signing off with best wishes to all for a fruitful discussion. [[User:Voceditenore|Voceditenore]] ([[User talk:Voceditenore|talk]]) 22:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
-:::Geni, Your response to Voceditenore is filled with the emotion-based rhetoric that you claim to have overcome.
-:::*Commercial sites that use such images can look [http://www.flixster.com/actor/john-doe amateurish] too.
-:::*"Articles where Wikipedia does not have a free image should not use a placeholder image" is a uniform style rule.
-:::*Perception by readers: I'm a reader. I feel qualified to say how the image affects my perception of the article. Apparently, many other readers on this page agree with me. I'm also an educated and visually literate person who can make reasonable assumptions about how such images are "read" by Wikipedia's mass readership.
-:::*If you believe the debate should be logic and evidence based, I would appreciate you articulating some new questions in the section above that can be discussed at length, instead of taking your current approach of delivering 50+ one-liner comments scattered throughout the page, many of them sarcastic or repetitive, that do not contribute to moving the discussion forward.
-:::*If you think that what is going on here on this page and in the archived discussion is one long variation of "I don't like it," you're not paying attention. [[User:Northwesterner1|Northwesterner1]] ([[User talk:Northwesterner1|talk]]) 22:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
-::::1)We have no idea if they site hired professional webdesigners but IMDb probably did
-::::2)Maybe but it doesn't result in a uniform style instead results in rather a lot of foreshortened infoboxes. This appears to be why the album people have [[:Image:Nocover.png]]
-::::3)so when you run across an article with a placeholder in you become immediately suspicious of it's content?
-::::4)If people repeat the same arguments they should logically expect the same response if they haven't addressed that response.
-::::5)I pay attention. subjective aesthetic judgments appear to be the only consistent objections.[[User:Genisock2|Genisock2]] ([[User talk:Genisock2|talk]]) 23:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Image placeholders: Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 14:23, 4 June 2022

The archives

Conclusion

Comments

Summary

Comment

Attempts to prevent archiving Conclusion section (immediately above)

Advice to the closing admin from an uninvolved reader

Navigation menu

Search