This page was nominated for deletion on 2007-4-28. The result of the discussion was Keep. |
no archives yet ( create) |
Several placeholder images redirect here. See the following image description pages for file and licensing and info:
Documentation (ie how it works of the Fromowner system can be found at Wikipedia:Fromowner documentation. Genisock2 12:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps in the opening section, (i.e. you took it yourself) could be rephrased (i.e. you created it yourself), or (i.e. you took/created it yourself)? I know it's only a minor thing, and I would probably do it myself, and then leave it if it got reworded due to being unnecessary, but it's protected. I don't know if anybody else thinks this would be a worthwhile change to make...-- Dreaded Walrus 19:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
This is pretty ugly, stylistically and grammatically: "Do you own one? If so please click here". How about, "Have a free image? Click here!" Could be improved further, of course :) Stevage 03:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree, this thing may be a good idea, but it's a mess 1 davewho2 14:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
It would look a bit nicer if we added a class="plainlinks" attribute to the enclosing <div> to hide the external link arrows on the two 'external' links (they are actually internal, after all) – Qxz 00:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Over the past couple of months I've noticed that a lot of the very professional-looking publicity photos have been removed from biographies, and replaced with either no picture or often a very poor-quality image. Did I miss some kind of discussion on policy? Why can't we use those photos (usually released by PR for those people for use) under fair use anymore? - Tejastheory 18:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}} Could created or another word be used instead of drew? If you create an image digitally, is it still drawing it? Talk User:Fissionfox 12:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
"This does NOT apply to images found somewhere on the Internet or created by someone else." - shouldn't it say: This does NOT apply to some images found somewhere on the Internet or created by someone else.
Everyone knows that images found "somewhere" on the internet very well may be copyrighted.
Have a good day! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.33.125.219 ( talk) 21:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC).
This image is unencyclopedic. It would be better to have no image than what looks like an advertisement. It also makes the page look incomplete. -- Astrokey 44 02:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
This is worse than just non-encyclopedic, it's a blatant transgression of WP:SELF. This needs to be sent to WP:MFD to be deleted or userspaced before it causes any more mess; if something like this is to be deployed, it needs to go through the standard guideline proposal process and reach consensus before it gets spammed all over hundreds of articles without any community discussion about the merits of the idea. Unlike the permissible dispute/cleanup tags, this weird thing is not alerting editors to a genuine problem that needs to be fixed, so it does not qualify as a WP:SELF exception; it's simply a "wouldn't it be nice if..." thing, and by very long-standing convention, these go on talk pages. And we already have templates for that, such as the |needs-photo field of {{ WPBiography}}, as well as the more general-use {{ Reqphoto}} template. — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ cont ‹(-¿-)› 05:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I find this image really annoying. The font size of the text is much larger than all of the article text, so that the most prominent thing in many biographical articles is now not the lead, but some advertising with zero informative value about the subject. The aesthetics of it leave to be desired as well. I would suggest this image to be removed, or at minimum made much less eye-catching. Redquark 17:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that it is ugly. -- Iamunknown 23:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
It also makes the page look incomplete.
a blatant transgression of WP:SELF.
The entire idea is ugly.
It's no different than stub tags which say "you can help Wikipedia!" by expanding this crap. Consider it in that light. — freak( talk) 03:04, May. 9, 2007 (UTC)
Here's a new image, with a better title, normal size, and wording as per this talk page.
Another one should be created for Image:No free building.svg, but with a silhouette instead of the isometric drawing. — Omegatron 02:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 May 22#Image:Replace_this_image1.svg. Cheers, Iamunknown 05:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Kudos - Even though I'm a strong proponent of WP:SELF, I think this is a great idea. It immediately reminds readers that we could use their help even if they never plan to edit (just about everybody has a cell phone camera nowadays and could help get photos of famous people they bump into). It also encourages the subjects of articles and their agents to add free content images to the commons. I mean, who wants to have a generic image placeholder decorating an article about yourself or their client - esp when that article is a top Google hit. Again, Kudos! -- mav 03:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I know this has been discussed before, but I feel my two cents are needed. This image, whether some people find it ugly or not, should not be displayed on the article page, in infoboxes. I find it distracting and it does not contribute to the article, rather I feel it detracts from it. Personally, I think we need to move these to the talk page of the article where we normally place {{Image Requested}}, or we could create a banner box of "image requested," like we do to many cleanup/expansion templates ({{ Cleanup}}, {{ Copyedit}}, {{ Prose}}, {{ Expand}}, etc.) Any thoughts? -- Will Mak 050389 18:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I would change the page myself, except it's protected. It currently says "If you hold the copyright to an image (e.g. you photographed or drew it yourself)" - perhaps we could change it to something like "Or you know a photograph that is released under the Creative Commons license" - we want to allow flickr pages and the like to be uploaded here. Thoughts? The Evil Spartan 16:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Geni created a female-headshot version; I've now got an organised pair at Image:Replace this image male.svg and Image:Replace this image female.svg. Now to change the documentation and change everything over... Shimgray | talk | 21:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if this is the place to ask. But why does Wikipedia require a license that allows commercial usage of contributed media? Why isn't CC Non-Commercial acceptable? Iragilac 17:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Why is this about the uploader owning the copyright, anyway? Getting free images from Flickr is perfectly fine, too, with instructions on how to tag them for review, etc. — Omegatron 23:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}} The "(versions 2.5 and earlier)" text needs to be removed, as 3.0 licenses have been confirmed as free. east. 718 at 06:01, August 20, 2007
what if you photographed another photo or painting or picture that you didn't make?-- Ostrich11 01:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
It would be good if the placeholder images were assigned a CSS class, so that users can specify "display:none" for them, if they want.-- Patrick 09:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
<span {{#switch:{{{image}}}|Replace this image male.svg|..=class=dummy}}>[[Image:..]]</span>
Just use a template in the image=
instead of typing out the image name. {{
no male portrait}} or something. Then you can get a bot to change them all; that part's not hard. —
Omegatron 23:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
This is spam. Most people do not have a personal photo in uploadable format for a given celebrity. But let put this message in big font at the top of the article so we can find that one lone person and annoy the millions of others. I am sure there are some good intentions with this. But come on. How is this not spam? - MarsRover 20:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
This isn't spam anymore than the citation needed template is. As for the horrible quality of the images, that's the fault of the Wikimedia Foundation. Hopefully these maintenance templates will reduce the problem as much as is possible within the current regime. — Omegatron 02:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
This is a quibble, but isn't there a macro or something that can see if you're logged in with an account or not? It'd be nice if that was only displayed for the people that didn't actually have an account.— Chowbok ☠ 18:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Currently, if an image is deleted from Commons, the red links are removed from the article. I have however recently created functionality which allows the bot to replace the image instead of delinking it. This means that deleted portraits can be replaced by Image:Replace this image1.svg. If this is wanted on the English Wikipedia, let me know and post a list of criteria that must be satisfied in order for the image to be replaced by Image:Replace this image1.svg. -- Bryan ( talk| commons) 17:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
This thing absolutely needs to be wrapped in self-ref so that it can be removed in mirrors, print, and DVD versions with no more difficulty than stub and cleanup templates, which probably means this thing should be a template. It doesn't matter how much effort or server lag it causes - without it the image/template whatever violates WP:SELF. Has anyone tried to fix this yet? Oh yeah, the whole thing is still protected, by the author. NO COI there. Why is this page protected? — Swpb talk | edits 12:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Removing self-ref templates and placeholder images is one step more difficult than only removing templates, now matter how easy the images are to remove. Show me one other accepted form of self-reference in Wikipedia which isn't wrapped in a template. — Swpb talk | edits 02:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
There should be a link for people who do not have the account, or do not wish to create them. They should be able to contact a Wikipedian, who can help them with it. -- Zureks 15:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
If we are going to keep putting placeholder images on articles, can we at least get rid of the text in the images? People would still be able to click on the placeholder image (maybe wondering why it and not a "real" image is there) and see a plea requesting a suitable (replacement) image for the article. According to the deletion discussion, it seems that this may not have gone through the right discussion areas. However, I know Encarta even uses default images in some places, like to go with a sound clip if there's no corresponding "real" image. Also, blank (text/"ad"-free) images would qualm some objections raised in the deletion discussion.
In my view, if a Web browser's screen showing Wikipedia was a piece of paper, the content portion of it should not look out of place if it was cut out and pasted some where else. The only things besides the actual article text/images would be the 'byline' "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" and a mention of the license. The information may not be complete, but it should look complete and usable in the present state (forgetting about what the actual text says). As for stub, etc templates, I believe that they are automatically being edited out when the article is sent somewhere (e.g. a printer or answers.com). A text/"ad"-free placeholder image would not look out of place as much or as incomplete. Likewise, I am also considering proposing that [citation needed] be changed to [uncited], which seems more professional/less incomplete looking. Clicking on the link would still take you to a plea to find sources.
Also note that, if there is approval to do so, the placeholders could probably set as a default image in info boxes, shown if no image is specified in the parameters, using (I think) {Placeholder.svg|ImageFromParamater} ParserFunctions. Jason McHuff 09:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Per the deletion debates of Category:Fogen and Category:Fogenviewed (which now exist in a sort of limbo, being still used even though they're redlinks), it's clear that the naming scheme used for the pages, categories and templates involved in this system is confusing and should be clarified. The problem is not just that "only a few experienced admins" can easily understand it; it's that even experienced admins find it confusing.
In particular, I feel that basing the naming scheme on the "uselang" parameter values for Special:Upload was and is a bad idea. While those parameters do have to be fairly short and simple for practical reasons, we should consider them as abbreviations of the longer, "official" names.
Another issue is that we should integrate this system better with the similar but more general Wikipedia:Upload system. In fact, it might be advisable to carry out this integration at a deeper level, but for now I'm only interested in the organization and naming of the pages involved.
Since I'm not one to do things half-way, I propose the following set of renames:
Project pages:
I propose turning all the "fromowner" pages into subpages of the general Wikipedia:Upload wizard. The name I'm suggesting for the subpage, "Replace this image", echoes the text actually shown on the placeholder images. The subpage-based naming scheme is easily extensible and provides automatic uplinks from specialized subpages to more generic ones. The rename also fixes the historical accident whereby the simplest name is currently used for images of people rather than for general images.
The new Wikipedia:Upload placeholder images page should serve as a general description of the placeholder images and the associated upload wizard setup, providing both introductory information for people interested in using the placeholders, a general description of the goals of the system and technical details of how it is implemented.
Categories:
The proposed category names are consistent, in plain English and compliant to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories). Besides renaming, the categories will also need improved descriptions, linking to Wikipedia:Upload placeholder images (see above) and other pages relevant to each category. The categories for unreviewed images should clearly explain that they are transitory categories containing only images currently in need of review.
Templates:
class=buildings
)class=people
)reviewed=1
)reviewed=1
and class=buildings
)reviewed=1
and class=people
)I'm tentatively proposing that all these templates be merged into one, with optional parameters controlling the categorization. Alternatively, subpages (as in Template:Multilicense replacing placeholder/people) could be used instead of either or both parameters.
Uselang values:
I would also suggest changing the "uselang" parameter values to be more informative, extensible, and to better match the convention used by Wikipedia:Upload (which I believe derives from a similar convention at Commons). These changes are of lesser importance, though, since they are less visible to general users. Making the changes would involve renaming the corresponding subpages of MediaWiki:Uploadtext and MediaWiki:Licenses (as well as, of course, editing the corresponding project pages).
If I've missed any pages related to this system that should also be renamed, please let me know. I'm not proposing to rename the placeholder images themselves: I feel that they're mostly quite well named already, and renaming them would be a significant chore anyway. It would probably be a good idea to come up with a written guideline for naming any future new variants, though.
I'll post links to this proposal at Wikipedia talk:Upload and at the deletion review debate for Category:Fogen. Feel free to do the same elsewhere if you know any other pages whose readers might find it relevant.
Does anyone object to this proposal? Please comment. — Ilmari Karonen ( talk) 16:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
[[Category:{{#if:{{{reviewed|}}}|Reviewed images|Images}}{{#if:{{{class|}}}| of {{{class}}}}} replacing placeholders]]
.) Or were you thinking of something entirely different? —
Ilmari Karonen (
talk) 17:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)Since the discussion seems to have stopped and since there don't seem to be any major objections, I'm going to start implementing the renames I've proposed above. I'll post updates here as I go along. — Ilmari Karonen ( talk) 17:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for renaming these. Much better now. — Omegatron 18:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't we encourage users to upload to Commons instead? (Excluding non-free images, of course.) I see no mention of this on Wikipedia:Fromowner or its variants. Rocket000 10:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Seriously, people - re-usable or not, if you want Wikipedia to be considered quality - a grainy cell-phone picture just is not going to cut it. I mean, I'm looking at an article of a guy who's been dead 30 years - yet there's not even a single photo of him. There's pictures over 50-75 years old of this guy - why can't we use one of those? Nah, because someone didn't take a grainy horrible cell-camera picture of him. Wait a second, cool! I bet someone got their digital camera back in 1940 and snapped a pic. Awesome. This huge wave of free-use nazism is really getting out of hand. Wikipedia was better when there were quality images. Now it's quickly turning into a graphical joke. It's extremely sad, but it's true - in my eyes at least. Computers & web - are about graphics. If we wanted 100% text - we could head on down to the library and grab a 1920 edition of Encyclopedia Boringtannica. At the least - have some quality standards. Get rid of the grainy pictures that look like 1960's slides. They're a joke - and pardon my language ... they look like crap. What's next? Drawing lopsided portraits in mspaint? Come on. But even such - hypocrisy is abound.
Let me just grab one example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uma_Thurman
Slap all over that page are screen captures from films. Copyright everywhere. Then we have branding captured: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirsten_dunst
Uh-oh, better blur that "Spider Man 3" out. Trademark. Even if we want to hold these high "standards" - it's going to prove extremely difficult. You can do your best to be "completely open" yet you still fail.
Just make things look good. If you're still free - as in - fair use - then great. If you want to be a "free use nazi" - by all means, go all out - practice what you preach - blur out every single trademark, every single copyrighted image, every single screen capture of a computer program, every single video game screenshot, and so-on. As it stands, this push is a failure - and it does more harm than good, in my opinion at the least. Whoever started this whole farce is a FOOL.
-- Kyanwan ( talk) 06:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Upload/Replace this image/People should mention the possibility of public domain photos, such as from U.S. government sources. Superm401 - Talk 00:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Please see Proposal to suspend all further use of this graphic on article pages. Thanks and regards. -- Kleinzach ( talk) 00:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
A discussion concerning the use of image placeholders has opened at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Image placeholders and may be of interest to editors watching this image. The placeholder images have recently been uploaded to 50,000 articles, and while there has been disagreement about the use of these images in various corners, there has not been a centralized discussion on this issue affecting the community. Please contribute your thoughts and publicize this discussion anywhere you feel would be appropriate. Thank you. Northwesterner1 ( talk) 10:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Now that the centralized discussion is closed, and the conclusion seems to be that placeholder images should not be used in articles, the question becomes whether the upload wizard and the upload-sorting backend can still be salvaged for some useful purpose.
My suggestion would be to modify any relevant infobox templates so that the use of a specific dummy image name, such as "NO_FREE_IMAGE", would cause the image to be replaced with an inobtrusive textual note linking to the appropriate upload wizard. The result might look something like this (adapted from Template:Infobox_Person/doc):
William Henry Gates III | |
| |
Born |
October 28
1955 Seattle, Washington |
---|---|
Occupation |
Chairman,
Microsoft Co-Chair, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation |
Salary | US$ 966,667 |
Net worth | US$ 56.0 billion (2007) |
Spouse | Melinda Gates (since 1994) |
Children | 3 |
Signature | |
Website Microsoft (Press Pass) Gates Foundation |
{{Infobox Person |name = William Henry Gates III |image = NO_FREE_IMAGE |image_size = |caption = Bill Gates at an IT forum in Denmark, 2004 |birth_date = {{birth date and age|1955|10|28}} |birth_place = [[Seattle, Washington]] |occupation = [[Chairperson|Chairman]], [[Microsoft]]<br/>Co-Chair, [[Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation]] |salary = {{nowrap|[[United States dollar|US$]] 966,667}} |networth = {{nowrap|US$ 56.0 billion}} (2007) |spouse = [[Melinda Gates]] (since 1994) |children = 3 |signature = Bill Gates signature.svg |website = [http://www.microsoft.com/ Microsoft] [http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/exec/billg/default.mspx (Press Pass)]<br/> [http://www.gatesfoundation.org Gates Foundation] }}
Such a feature could be easily implemented using ParserFunctions.
Advantages:
Disadvantages:
Note that, if the location of the text at the top of the infobox is still considered too obtrusive, it would not be particularly more difficult to place the link somewhere else, such as below the infobox, as shown in the second mockup infobox on the right. The wikimarkup would be the same in either case, only the code within the infobox templates would differ.
William Henry Gates III | |
Born |
October 28
1955 Seattle, Washington |
---|---|
Occupation |
Chairman,
Microsoft Co-Chair, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation |
Salary | US$ 966,667 |
Net worth | US$ 56.0 billion (2007) |
Spouse | Melinda Gates (since 1994) |
Children | 3 |
Signature | |
Website Microsoft (Press Pass) Gates Foundation |
No free image available. If you have one, please upload it. |
It would also be technically possible to implement the feature so that the link appears whenever the "image" parameter is missing or empty, without the need for a dummy value like "NO_FREE_IMAGE". However, I'm not convinced this would be a good idea for a couple of reasons. First of all, there would be no obvious way to disable the link, although we could implement a dummy value for that (e.g. "image = none"). Also, telling inexperienced uploaders to "replace NO_FREE_IMAGE with the name of the image you uploaded" is easier than telling them to add or fill in the "image" parameter to an infobox ("add a what to the what?"), particularly in cases where the parameter might not be present in the existing wikimarkup of the page at all. Still, I'm certainly open to suggestions to the contrary on this.
So, what do you think? I suppose I should request comments on this on (at least) Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (infoboxes) and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Infoboxes, but I figure this is as good a place for actually discussing the idea as any.
— Ilmari Karonen ( talk) 16:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, a better place for discussion is probably Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Image placeholders#The "magic parameter" implementation. — Ilmari Karonen ( talk) 09:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
There is no free image of this subject available. You can help Wikipedia by providing one. |
Images should be directed to Commons - that would cut down on the need to move them latter. -- Jarekt ( talk) 20:31, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Upload/Replace this image/People has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
To solve lint errors, please replace the contents of this file with the contents of Wikipedia:Upload/Replace this image/People&action/sandbox. After replacing, the sandbox file may be deleted. — Anomalocaris ( talk) 22:06, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Montana has been released, so you should change Montana's status from "In Development" to "Available". TheLimeBoi ( talk) 11:30, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
This page was nominated for deletion on 2007-4-28. The result of the discussion was Keep. |
no archives yet ( create) |
Several placeholder images redirect here. See the following image description pages for file and licensing and info:
Documentation (ie how it works of the Fromowner system can be found at Wikipedia:Fromowner documentation. Genisock2 12:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps in the opening section, (i.e. you took it yourself) could be rephrased (i.e. you created it yourself), or (i.e. you took/created it yourself)? I know it's only a minor thing, and I would probably do it myself, and then leave it if it got reworded due to being unnecessary, but it's protected. I don't know if anybody else thinks this would be a worthwhile change to make...-- Dreaded Walrus 19:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
This is pretty ugly, stylistically and grammatically: "Do you own one? If so please click here". How about, "Have a free image? Click here!" Could be improved further, of course :) Stevage 03:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree, this thing may be a good idea, but it's a mess 1 davewho2 14:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
It would look a bit nicer if we added a class="plainlinks" attribute to the enclosing <div> to hide the external link arrows on the two 'external' links (they are actually internal, after all) – Qxz 00:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Over the past couple of months I've noticed that a lot of the very professional-looking publicity photos have been removed from biographies, and replaced with either no picture or often a very poor-quality image. Did I miss some kind of discussion on policy? Why can't we use those photos (usually released by PR for those people for use) under fair use anymore? - Tejastheory 18:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}} Could created or another word be used instead of drew? If you create an image digitally, is it still drawing it? Talk User:Fissionfox 12:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
"This does NOT apply to images found somewhere on the Internet or created by someone else." - shouldn't it say: This does NOT apply to some images found somewhere on the Internet or created by someone else.
Everyone knows that images found "somewhere" on the internet very well may be copyrighted.
Have a good day! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.33.125.219 ( talk) 21:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC).
This image is unencyclopedic. It would be better to have no image than what looks like an advertisement. It also makes the page look incomplete. -- Astrokey 44 02:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
This is worse than just non-encyclopedic, it's a blatant transgression of WP:SELF. This needs to be sent to WP:MFD to be deleted or userspaced before it causes any more mess; if something like this is to be deployed, it needs to go through the standard guideline proposal process and reach consensus before it gets spammed all over hundreds of articles without any community discussion about the merits of the idea. Unlike the permissible dispute/cleanup tags, this weird thing is not alerting editors to a genuine problem that needs to be fixed, so it does not qualify as a WP:SELF exception; it's simply a "wouldn't it be nice if..." thing, and by very long-standing convention, these go on talk pages. And we already have templates for that, such as the |needs-photo field of {{ WPBiography}}, as well as the more general-use {{ Reqphoto}} template. — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ cont ‹(-¿-)› 05:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I find this image really annoying. The font size of the text is much larger than all of the article text, so that the most prominent thing in many biographical articles is now not the lead, but some advertising with zero informative value about the subject. The aesthetics of it leave to be desired as well. I would suggest this image to be removed, or at minimum made much less eye-catching. Redquark 17:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that it is ugly. -- Iamunknown 23:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
It also makes the page look incomplete.
a blatant transgression of WP:SELF.
The entire idea is ugly.
It's no different than stub tags which say "you can help Wikipedia!" by expanding this crap. Consider it in that light. — freak( talk) 03:04, May. 9, 2007 (UTC)
Here's a new image, with a better title, normal size, and wording as per this talk page.
Another one should be created for Image:No free building.svg, but with a silhouette instead of the isometric drawing. — Omegatron 02:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 May 22#Image:Replace_this_image1.svg. Cheers, Iamunknown 05:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Kudos - Even though I'm a strong proponent of WP:SELF, I think this is a great idea. It immediately reminds readers that we could use their help even if they never plan to edit (just about everybody has a cell phone camera nowadays and could help get photos of famous people they bump into). It also encourages the subjects of articles and their agents to add free content images to the commons. I mean, who wants to have a generic image placeholder decorating an article about yourself or their client - esp when that article is a top Google hit. Again, Kudos! -- mav 03:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I know this has been discussed before, but I feel my two cents are needed. This image, whether some people find it ugly or not, should not be displayed on the article page, in infoboxes. I find it distracting and it does not contribute to the article, rather I feel it detracts from it. Personally, I think we need to move these to the talk page of the article where we normally place {{Image Requested}}, or we could create a banner box of "image requested," like we do to many cleanup/expansion templates ({{ Cleanup}}, {{ Copyedit}}, {{ Prose}}, {{ Expand}}, etc.) Any thoughts? -- Will Mak 050389 18:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I would change the page myself, except it's protected. It currently says "If you hold the copyright to an image (e.g. you photographed or drew it yourself)" - perhaps we could change it to something like "Or you know a photograph that is released under the Creative Commons license" - we want to allow flickr pages and the like to be uploaded here. Thoughts? The Evil Spartan 16:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Geni created a female-headshot version; I've now got an organised pair at Image:Replace this image male.svg and Image:Replace this image female.svg. Now to change the documentation and change everything over... Shimgray | talk | 21:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if this is the place to ask. But why does Wikipedia require a license that allows commercial usage of contributed media? Why isn't CC Non-Commercial acceptable? Iragilac 17:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Why is this about the uploader owning the copyright, anyway? Getting free images from Flickr is perfectly fine, too, with instructions on how to tag them for review, etc. — Omegatron 23:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}} The "(versions 2.5 and earlier)" text needs to be removed, as 3.0 licenses have been confirmed as free. east. 718 at 06:01, August 20, 2007
what if you photographed another photo or painting or picture that you didn't make?-- Ostrich11 01:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
It would be good if the placeholder images were assigned a CSS class, so that users can specify "display:none" for them, if they want.-- Patrick 09:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
<span {{#switch:{{{image}}}|Replace this image male.svg|..=class=dummy}}>[[Image:..]]</span>
Just use a template in the image=
instead of typing out the image name. {{
no male portrait}} or something. Then you can get a bot to change them all; that part's not hard. —
Omegatron 23:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
This is spam. Most people do not have a personal photo in uploadable format for a given celebrity. But let put this message in big font at the top of the article so we can find that one lone person and annoy the millions of others. I am sure there are some good intentions with this. But come on. How is this not spam? - MarsRover 20:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
This isn't spam anymore than the citation needed template is. As for the horrible quality of the images, that's the fault of the Wikimedia Foundation. Hopefully these maintenance templates will reduce the problem as much as is possible within the current regime. — Omegatron 02:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
This is a quibble, but isn't there a macro or something that can see if you're logged in with an account or not? It'd be nice if that was only displayed for the people that didn't actually have an account.— Chowbok ☠ 18:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Currently, if an image is deleted from Commons, the red links are removed from the article. I have however recently created functionality which allows the bot to replace the image instead of delinking it. This means that deleted portraits can be replaced by Image:Replace this image1.svg. If this is wanted on the English Wikipedia, let me know and post a list of criteria that must be satisfied in order for the image to be replaced by Image:Replace this image1.svg. -- Bryan ( talk| commons) 17:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
This thing absolutely needs to be wrapped in self-ref so that it can be removed in mirrors, print, and DVD versions with no more difficulty than stub and cleanup templates, which probably means this thing should be a template. It doesn't matter how much effort or server lag it causes - without it the image/template whatever violates WP:SELF. Has anyone tried to fix this yet? Oh yeah, the whole thing is still protected, by the author. NO COI there. Why is this page protected? — Swpb talk | edits 12:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Removing self-ref templates and placeholder images is one step more difficult than only removing templates, now matter how easy the images are to remove. Show me one other accepted form of self-reference in Wikipedia which isn't wrapped in a template. — Swpb talk | edits 02:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
There should be a link for people who do not have the account, or do not wish to create them. They should be able to contact a Wikipedian, who can help them with it. -- Zureks 15:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
If we are going to keep putting placeholder images on articles, can we at least get rid of the text in the images? People would still be able to click on the placeholder image (maybe wondering why it and not a "real" image is there) and see a plea requesting a suitable (replacement) image for the article. According to the deletion discussion, it seems that this may not have gone through the right discussion areas. However, I know Encarta even uses default images in some places, like to go with a sound clip if there's no corresponding "real" image. Also, blank (text/"ad"-free) images would qualm some objections raised in the deletion discussion.
In my view, if a Web browser's screen showing Wikipedia was a piece of paper, the content portion of it should not look out of place if it was cut out and pasted some where else. The only things besides the actual article text/images would be the 'byline' "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" and a mention of the license. The information may not be complete, but it should look complete and usable in the present state (forgetting about what the actual text says). As for stub, etc templates, I believe that they are automatically being edited out when the article is sent somewhere (e.g. a printer or answers.com). A text/"ad"-free placeholder image would not look out of place as much or as incomplete. Likewise, I am also considering proposing that [citation needed] be changed to [uncited], which seems more professional/less incomplete looking. Clicking on the link would still take you to a plea to find sources.
Also note that, if there is approval to do so, the placeholders could probably set as a default image in info boxes, shown if no image is specified in the parameters, using (I think) {Placeholder.svg|ImageFromParamater} ParserFunctions. Jason McHuff 09:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Per the deletion debates of Category:Fogen and Category:Fogenviewed (which now exist in a sort of limbo, being still used even though they're redlinks), it's clear that the naming scheme used for the pages, categories and templates involved in this system is confusing and should be clarified. The problem is not just that "only a few experienced admins" can easily understand it; it's that even experienced admins find it confusing.
In particular, I feel that basing the naming scheme on the "uselang" parameter values for Special:Upload was and is a bad idea. While those parameters do have to be fairly short and simple for practical reasons, we should consider them as abbreviations of the longer, "official" names.
Another issue is that we should integrate this system better with the similar but more general Wikipedia:Upload system. In fact, it might be advisable to carry out this integration at a deeper level, but for now I'm only interested in the organization and naming of the pages involved.
Since I'm not one to do things half-way, I propose the following set of renames:
Project pages:
I propose turning all the "fromowner" pages into subpages of the general Wikipedia:Upload wizard. The name I'm suggesting for the subpage, "Replace this image", echoes the text actually shown on the placeholder images. The subpage-based naming scheme is easily extensible and provides automatic uplinks from specialized subpages to more generic ones. The rename also fixes the historical accident whereby the simplest name is currently used for images of people rather than for general images.
The new Wikipedia:Upload placeholder images page should serve as a general description of the placeholder images and the associated upload wizard setup, providing both introductory information for people interested in using the placeholders, a general description of the goals of the system and technical details of how it is implemented.
Categories:
The proposed category names are consistent, in plain English and compliant to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories). Besides renaming, the categories will also need improved descriptions, linking to Wikipedia:Upload placeholder images (see above) and other pages relevant to each category. The categories for unreviewed images should clearly explain that they are transitory categories containing only images currently in need of review.
Templates:
class=buildings
)class=people
)reviewed=1
)reviewed=1
and class=buildings
)reviewed=1
and class=people
)I'm tentatively proposing that all these templates be merged into one, with optional parameters controlling the categorization. Alternatively, subpages (as in Template:Multilicense replacing placeholder/people) could be used instead of either or both parameters.
Uselang values:
I would also suggest changing the "uselang" parameter values to be more informative, extensible, and to better match the convention used by Wikipedia:Upload (which I believe derives from a similar convention at Commons). These changes are of lesser importance, though, since they are less visible to general users. Making the changes would involve renaming the corresponding subpages of MediaWiki:Uploadtext and MediaWiki:Licenses (as well as, of course, editing the corresponding project pages).
If I've missed any pages related to this system that should also be renamed, please let me know. I'm not proposing to rename the placeholder images themselves: I feel that they're mostly quite well named already, and renaming them would be a significant chore anyway. It would probably be a good idea to come up with a written guideline for naming any future new variants, though.
I'll post links to this proposal at Wikipedia talk:Upload and at the deletion review debate for Category:Fogen. Feel free to do the same elsewhere if you know any other pages whose readers might find it relevant.
Does anyone object to this proposal? Please comment. — Ilmari Karonen ( talk) 16:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
[[Category:{{#if:{{{reviewed|}}}|Reviewed images|Images}}{{#if:{{{class|}}}| of {{{class}}}}} replacing placeholders]]
.) Or were you thinking of something entirely different? —
Ilmari Karonen (
talk) 17:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)Since the discussion seems to have stopped and since there don't seem to be any major objections, I'm going to start implementing the renames I've proposed above. I'll post updates here as I go along. — Ilmari Karonen ( talk) 17:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for renaming these. Much better now. — Omegatron 18:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't we encourage users to upload to Commons instead? (Excluding non-free images, of course.) I see no mention of this on Wikipedia:Fromowner or its variants. Rocket000 10:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Seriously, people - re-usable or not, if you want Wikipedia to be considered quality - a grainy cell-phone picture just is not going to cut it. I mean, I'm looking at an article of a guy who's been dead 30 years - yet there's not even a single photo of him. There's pictures over 50-75 years old of this guy - why can't we use one of those? Nah, because someone didn't take a grainy horrible cell-camera picture of him. Wait a second, cool! I bet someone got their digital camera back in 1940 and snapped a pic. Awesome. This huge wave of free-use nazism is really getting out of hand. Wikipedia was better when there were quality images. Now it's quickly turning into a graphical joke. It's extremely sad, but it's true - in my eyes at least. Computers & web - are about graphics. If we wanted 100% text - we could head on down to the library and grab a 1920 edition of Encyclopedia Boringtannica. At the least - have some quality standards. Get rid of the grainy pictures that look like 1960's slides. They're a joke - and pardon my language ... they look like crap. What's next? Drawing lopsided portraits in mspaint? Come on. But even such - hypocrisy is abound.
Let me just grab one example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uma_Thurman
Slap all over that page are screen captures from films. Copyright everywhere. Then we have branding captured: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirsten_dunst
Uh-oh, better blur that "Spider Man 3" out. Trademark. Even if we want to hold these high "standards" - it's going to prove extremely difficult. You can do your best to be "completely open" yet you still fail.
Just make things look good. If you're still free - as in - fair use - then great. If you want to be a "free use nazi" - by all means, go all out - practice what you preach - blur out every single trademark, every single copyrighted image, every single screen capture of a computer program, every single video game screenshot, and so-on. As it stands, this push is a failure - and it does more harm than good, in my opinion at the least. Whoever started this whole farce is a FOOL.
-- Kyanwan ( talk) 06:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Upload/Replace this image/People should mention the possibility of public domain photos, such as from U.S. government sources. Superm401 - Talk 00:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Please see Proposal to suspend all further use of this graphic on article pages. Thanks and regards. -- Kleinzach ( talk) 00:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
A discussion concerning the use of image placeholders has opened at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Image placeholders and may be of interest to editors watching this image. The placeholder images have recently been uploaded to 50,000 articles, and while there has been disagreement about the use of these images in various corners, there has not been a centralized discussion on this issue affecting the community. Please contribute your thoughts and publicize this discussion anywhere you feel would be appropriate. Thank you. Northwesterner1 ( talk) 10:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Now that the centralized discussion is closed, and the conclusion seems to be that placeholder images should not be used in articles, the question becomes whether the upload wizard and the upload-sorting backend can still be salvaged for some useful purpose.
My suggestion would be to modify any relevant infobox templates so that the use of a specific dummy image name, such as "NO_FREE_IMAGE", would cause the image to be replaced with an inobtrusive textual note linking to the appropriate upload wizard. The result might look something like this (adapted from Template:Infobox_Person/doc):
William Henry Gates III | |
| |
Born |
October 28
1955 Seattle, Washington |
---|---|
Occupation |
Chairman,
Microsoft Co-Chair, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation |
Salary | US$ 966,667 |
Net worth | US$ 56.0 billion (2007) |
Spouse | Melinda Gates (since 1994) |
Children | 3 |
Signature | |
Website Microsoft (Press Pass) Gates Foundation |
{{Infobox Person |name = William Henry Gates III |image = NO_FREE_IMAGE |image_size = |caption = Bill Gates at an IT forum in Denmark, 2004 |birth_date = {{birth date and age|1955|10|28}} |birth_place = [[Seattle, Washington]] |occupation = [[Chairperson|Chairman]], [[Microsoft]]<br/>Co-Chair, [[Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation]] |salary = {{nowrap|[[United States dollar|US$]] 966,667}} |networth = {{nowrap|US$ 56.0 billion}} (2007) |spouse = [[Melinda Gates]] (since 1994) |children = 3 |signature = Bill Gates signature.svg |website = [http://www.microsoft.com/ Microsoft] [http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/exec/billg/default.mspx (Press Pass)]<br/> [http://www.gatesfoundation.org Gates Foundation] }}
Such a feature could be easily implemented using ParserFunctions.
Advantages:
Disadvantages:
Note that, if the location of the text at the top of the infobox is still considered too obtrusive, it would not be particularly more difficult to place the link somewhere else, such as below the infobox, as shown in the second mockup infobox on the right. The wikimarkup would be the same in either case, only the code within the infobox templates would differ.
William Henry Gates III | |
Born |
October 28
1955 Seattle, Washington |
---|---|
Occupation |
Chairman,
Microsoft Co-Chair, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation |
Salary | US$ 966,667 |
Net worth | US$ 56.0 billion (2007) |
Spouse | Melinda Gates (since 1994) |
Children | 3 |
Signature | |
Website Microsoft (Press Pass) Gates Foundation |
No free image available. If you have one, please upload it. |
It would also be technically possible to implement the feature so that the link appears whenever the "image" parameter is missing or empty, without the need for a dummy value like "NO_FREE_IMAGE". However, I'm not convinced this would be a good idea for a couple of reasons. First of all, there would be no obvious way to disable the link, although we could implement a dummy value for that (e.g. "image = none"). Also, telling inexperienced uploaders to "replace NO_FREE_IMAGE with the name of the image you uploaded" is easier than telling them to add or fill in the "image" parameter to an infobox ("add a what to the what?"), particularly in cases where the parameter might not be present in the existing wikimarkup of the page at all. Still, I'm certainly open to suggestions to the contrary on this.
So, what do you think? I suppose I should request comments on this on (at least) Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (infoboxes) and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Infoboxes, but I figure this is as good a place for actually discussing the idea as any.
— Ilmari Karonen ( talk) 16:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, a better place for discussion is probably Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Image placeholders#The "magic parameter" implementation. — Ilmari Karonen ( talk) 09:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
There is no free image of this subject available. You can help Wikipedia by providing one. |
Images should be directed to Commons - that would cut down on the need to move them latter. -- Jarekt ( talk) 20:31, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Upload/Replace this image/People has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
To solve lint errors, please replace the contents of this file with the contents of Wikipedia:Upload/Replace this image/People&action/sandbox. After replacing, the sandbox file may be deleted. — Anomalocaris ( talk) 22:06, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Montana has been released, so you should change Montana's status from "In Development" to "Available". TheLimeBoi ( talk) 11:30, 8 August 2022 (UTC)