http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Replace_this_image_female.sv... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Replace_this_image_male.svg&... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Replace_this_image1.svg&...
(those are the HTTP links to the non-redirected versions, as the image pages redirect to [[Wikipedia:Fromowner]])
The previous Village Pump discussion got bogged down in wording and colouring discussions, but I think the one point everyone could agree on was that the previous images were hideous and jarring. So for these, I have:
1. changed the background from transparent to a soft blue (#E6E6FF) 2. made the text into a path.
I have not changed the actual image outlines and I have not changed the text (except adding a comma to two of them).
The text issue was that the font was being rendered by MediaWiki's servers as serif, even though the actual image specifies Bitstream Vera Sans. (I don't have Futura here, or I'd have used that. Mind you, Bitstream Vera Sans is Free™.) Making it into just another path makes that not an issue, although it reduces editability. (We can always use a previous version as a base if anyone can ever agree on a wording change.)
Hopefully these look more inviting and less like a spork in the viewer's eye ...
As well as adding hundreds of placeholders, I have been busy on Flickr looking for replacement images and have uploaded quite a lot of them in the past week or so. So I'm trying to help things along in the right direction ;-)
- d.
On 17/10/2007, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
As well as adding hundreds of placeholders, I have been busy on Flickr looking for replacement images and have uploaded quite a lot of them in the past week or so. So I'm trying to help things along in the right direction ;-)
As an aside, what articles should we be putting these on? Leaving aside the cases where it is known as a fact that there are no images of the subject*, it seems to me that it's rather impractical to put it on the article of anyone active before, say, the Second World War - the law of diminishing returns kicks in with time, and having a placeholder that's almost guaranteed never to get an image is probably a net loss over having a nice clean article with no image, period.
Thoughts?
On 17/10/2007, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 17/10/2007, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
As well as adding hundreds of placeholders, I have been busy on Flickr looking for replacement images and have uploaded quite a lot of them in the past week or so. So I'm trying to help things along in the right direction ;-)
As an aside, what articles should we be putting these on? Leaving aside the cases where it is known as a fact that there are no images of the subject*, it seems to me that it's rather impractical to put it on the article of anyone active before, say, the Second World War - the law of diminishing returns kicks in with time, and having a placeholder that's almost guaranteed never to get an image is probably a net loss over having a nice clean article with no image, period. Thoughts?
I've been whacking 'em on every living bio. I notice there's quite a few on people who've died in the last twenty years as well, though I'm not going that far.
The only problem I can see with whacking 'em on every living bio is an influx of images that aren't free images, but I'm sure we can cope with those in the usual manner ...
The only real exceptions would be known recluses (the [[J.D. Salinger]] exception). Mind you, I'm surprised and pleased that one of the very few existing photos of [[Thomas Pynchon]] is US Government PD!
- d.
Andrew Gray wrote:
As an aside, what articles should we be putting these on? Leaving aside the cases where it is known as a fact that there are no images of the subject*, it seems to me that it's rather impractical to put it on the article of anyone active before, say, the Second World War - the law of diminishing returns kicks in with time, and having a placeholder that's almost guaranteed never to get an image is probably a net loss over having a nice clean article with no image, period.
I think that's a good point, and I don't have a strong opinion myself. But I did want to pass along a data point.
Last night my girlfriend mentioned that she tried to use Wikipedia to figure out who an actor was. But there was no picture, so she went off to IMDB. She told me that she'd noticed a lot fewer pictures lately, and so got the impression that Wikipedia was trying not to have pictures.
So from a UI design perspective, consistently placing a picture placeholder on biographical articles can signal something broader than just something about that particular article.
William
On 17/10/2007, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
Andrew Gray wrote:
As an aside, what articles should we be putting these on? Leaving aside the cases where it is known as a fact that there are no images of the subject*, it seems to me that it's rather impractical to put it on the article of anyone active before, say, the Second World War - the law of diminishing returns kicks in with time, and having a placeholder that's almost guaranteed never to get an image is probably a net loss over having a nice clean article with no image, period.
I think that's a good point, and I don't have a strong opinion myself. But I did want to pass along a data point.
Last night my girlfriend mentioned that she tried to use Wikipedia to figure out who an actor was. But there was no picture, so she went off to IMDB. She told me that she'd noticed a lot fewer pictures lately, and so got the impression that Wikipedia was trying not to have pictures.
So from a UI design perspective, consistently placing a picture placeholder on biographical articles can signal something broader than just something about that particular article.
William
IMDB has placeholders on everyone but I believe they are more relaxed about copyright.
Quoting geni geniice@gmail.com:
IMDB has placeholders on everyone but I believe they are more relaxed about copyright.
I'll need to remember that euphemism. "More relaxed". As far as I can tell, if Wikipedia's attitude towards pictures is puritanical, than IMBD is one long-running orgy.
On 17/10/2007, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
As an aside, what articles should we be putting these on? Leaving aside the cases where it is known as a fact that there are no images of the subject*, it seems to me that it's rather impractical to put it on the article of anyone active before, say, the Second World War - the law of diminishing returns kicks in with time, and having a placeholder that's almost guaranteed never to get an image is probably a net loss over having a nice clean article with no image, period.
Thoughts?
Generally they should be active and appearing in public at the present.
Bus results appear to be musicians and actors. Politicians can result in images but their are issues with them being uploaded by staff with ah messy copyright statuses. For example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Kevan_jones_mp.jpg
We've got a couple of pics of people known for their life expectancy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Harry_Patch.jpg
Requests should be avoided for major people of significant importance in 10-14 year old culture since the level of copyvios is unacceptable (Zac Efron being the prime example)
As well as the people based placed holders we have:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Replace_this_imageb.svg&...
Although not widely used it has had some level of success.
Currently someone is looking into creating a warship placeholder. There is a general purpose one however I don't like it and would rather people used subject specific ones.
It is also starting to appear on non en projects:
http://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Uploadtext/fromowner http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%9E%D7%93%D7%99%D7%94_%D7%95%D7%99%D7%A7%D7%... http://ru.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%D0%98%D0%B7%D0%BE%D0%B1%D1%80%D0%...
However I don't know much about that.
On 17/10/2007, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Requests should be avoided for major people of significant importance in 10-14 year old culture since the level of copyvios is unacceptable (Zac Efron being the prime example)
Oh, I dunno. I've had a good hitrate on Flickr for that sorta thing. Anyone there's likely to be snapshots of, and snapshots are getting to pretty good quality these days. (c.f. [[will.i.am]])
As well as the people based placed holders we have: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Replace_this_imageb.svg&... Although not widely used it has had some level of success.
*goes to do the same to that one*
Currently someone is looking into creating a warship placeholder. There is a general purpose one however I don't like it and would rather people used subject specific ones.
It is also starting to appear on non en projects: http://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Uploadtext/fromowner http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%9E%D7%93%D7%99%D7%94_%D7%95%D7%99%D7%A7%D7%... http://ru.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%D0%98%D0%B7%D0%BE%D0%B1%D1%80%D0%...
:-D
Note that the only significant change to the images was the #E6E6FF background. That's enough to make it less obnoxious but still clear. More like a gap in a stamp album that isn't visually jarring, but still makes you want to fill it.
- d.
On 17/10/2007, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 17/10/2007, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Requests should be avoided for major people of significant importance in 10-14 year old culture since the level of copyvios is unacceptable (Zac Efron being the prime example)
Oh, I dunno. I've had a good hitrate on Flickr for that sorta thing. Anyone there's likely to be snapshots of, and snapshots are getting to pretty good quality these days. (c.f. [[will.i.am]])
Zac Efron copyvios were being uploaded at a rate of at least one a day.
Note that the only significant change to the images was the #E6E6FF background. That's enough to make it less obnoxious but still clear. More like a gap in a stamp album that isn't visually jarring, but still makes you want to fill it.
I think the font may date from when I resized to 150*150px and it may have been different in the original.
On 17/10/2007, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 17/10/2007, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 17/10/2007, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Requests should be avoided for major people of significant importance in 10-14 year old culture since the level of copyvios is unacceptable (Zac Efron being the prime example)
Oh, I dunno. I've had a good hitrate on Flickr for that sorta thing. Anyone there's likely to be snapshots of, and snapshots are getting to pretty good quality these days. (c.f. [[will.i.am]])
Zac Efron copyvios were being uploaded at a rate of at least one a day.
Ah yes. And I note there are four images on Flickr marked CC-by, and my arse those are originals. (One reason the flickr->commons bot still needs to mark the images as requiring human inspection.)
- d.
On 17/10/2007, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Ah yes. And I note there are four images on Flickr marked CC-by, and my arse those are originals. (One reason the flickr->commons bot still needs to mark the images as requiring human inspection.)
- d.
Might be something in:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/erynj/sets/72157602268147017/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/34348916@N00/sets/72157594463093147/
But I don't do facial recognition.