Jump to content

Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2017-07/Gallery

Add links
From Wiktionary, the free dictionary
[edit]

Voting on:

Proposal 1:

Allowing the "Gallery" section to be freely used in entries, as per the specifications below.
  • Purpose:
    Listing images using the tags <gallery></gallery>.
  • Style:
    Edit mw:Manual:$wgGalleryOptions (through a Phabricator request) to apply "mode=packed" by default in all galleries.
    After the default configuration above is applied, allow bots to remove the superfluous code "mode=packed" from all galleries that use it.
    ("mode=packed" produces a centered gallery with significantly less wasted space around each image, and causes all images to be the same height)
  • Section level:
    Generally, the same as currently used for "See also", "Further reading" and "References".
    "Gallery" can be a level 3 section that applies to any and all POS sections of the current language.
    "Gallery" can be a subsection of the section to which it applies: for example, a level 3 "Noun" can have a level 4 "Gallery".
  • Section placement:
    After the POS section(s), "Usage notes", "Inflection", "Declension", "Conjugation", "Mutation", "Quotations", "Alternative forms", "(...)nyms", "Coordinate terms", "Derived terms", "Related terms", "Descendants", "Translations", "Trivia".
    Before "See also", "References", "Further reading", "Anagrams".
  • Procedural note:
    If the proposal 1 fails, then the proposals 2 and 3 below are void.

Proposal 2:

Disallowing the use of the "Gallery" section with fewer than three images.
(Naturally, if the proposal 2 fails, then galleries with any number of images — including one or two images — will be permitted.)

Proposal 3:

Allowing {{commonslite}} (an inline template that links to Wikimedia Commons) to be placed in the "Gallery" section when it links to galleries or image categories.
Allowing, too, {{commonslite}} to be placed in an otherwise empty "Gallery" section (i.e., a "Gallery" section with zero images), even if "Gallery" sections with fewer than three images are disallowed as per the proposal 2.
Allowing bots to move all instances of {{commonslite}} from "Further reading", "See also", or "External links" to "Gallery".
Layout rule: If the "Gallery" section contains both a gallery and {{commonslite}}, then the gallery must be placed above the {{commonslite}}.

Example:

(this example is merely illustrative -- supporting this vote does not imply supporting the existence of three separate pictures of kittens at kitten)

Wikitext Result 
==English==

===Noun===
{{en-noun}}

# ...

===Gallery===
<gallery>
Stray kitten Rambo002.jpg|One kitten
Louis-&-Chanel-taking-a-nap.jpg|Two kittens
Abykitten.jpg|Three kittens
</gallery>
* {{commonslite}}

English

[edit]

Noun

[edit]

kitten (plural kittens)

  1. ...
[edit]
  • One kitten
    One kitten
  • Two kittens
    Two kittens
  • Three kittens
    Three kittens

Entries with "Gallery" sections as of 21 July 2017:

(Note: As of this date — which is before the vote started — all existing galleries in entries were moved to a "Gallery" section.)

list of entries (Translingual)
13 images
3 images
2 images

(Cyrillic below)

list of entries (English)
17 images
16 images
9 images
7 images
6 images
5 images
4 images
3 images
2 images
list of entries (Thai)
11 images
8 images
7 images
6 images
5 images
4 images
3 images
2 images
1 image
list of entries (other languages)
Chinese
Czech
Esperanto
Faroese
French
Italian
Korean
Phoenician
Slovak
Swedish
Tamil

Schedule:

Discussion:

Support: Proposal 1 (allowing "Gallery" sections)

[edit]
  1. Support --Daniel Carrero (talk) 08:54, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support - DonnanZ (talk) 11:30, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support -Xbony2 (talk) 19:43, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 17:56, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Proposal 1 (allowing "Gallery" sections)

[edit]
  1. Oppose. Images should be included only to supplement the definition(s) of a term. Anything that would make sense to include in a gallery section doesn't belong on Wiktionary at all. --WikiTiki89 18:10, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose. Awful idea. Go to WikiCommons if you want a gallery. --Victar (talk) 19:14, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, WikiCommons often has a lot of images per gallery. Here on Wiktionary we have like one image per sense. That's an important difference. And some entries have more senses than most, and galleries to match, like line and head. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 19:32, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose --Victar (talk) 19:36, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Victar: What would you like to do with the images currently in the two entries I mentioned above? --Daniel Carrero (talk) 19:42, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete them. You could have thousands of photos of different uses of "head". As said above, images are supplements, not to be used as definitions themselves. Unless someone else has a comment, that's all I'm going to say. --Victar (talk) 19:51, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I would delete most of them, and keep a few of the more necessary ones as thumbnails to the right of the definitions, as we have always been doing. --WikiTiki89 20:16, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose On the one hand we want Synonyms to appear under definitions, but for image-based ostensive definitions we want them separate? What about definitions that support etymogies? We could well encourage the use of "NNNpx" eg, 160px, 80px to reduce images to a size that enable them to appear next to appropriate definition. I'm sorry: I must have missed the prior discussion. Where is it? DCDuring (talk) 12:14, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @DCDuring: The prior discussions are in the vote description itself. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 12:17, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry. I should have said discussions meaningfully connecting specific proposals to specific problems and indicating a possible consensus, preferably with more than half the content from participants other than the proposer. DCDuring (talk) 12:26, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The June 2017 discussion does have a consensus in favor of allowing Gallery sections. But I don't think votes should be created only after there's already consensus in the discussion. I suppose you disagree with me on that? --Daniel Carrero (talk) 12:34, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose They just look really ugly to me. Equinox ◑ 16:23, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose --Droigheann (talk) 21:53, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose — Saltmarsh. 05:22, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose Ƿidsiþ 12:31, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose. Images are most helpful when they are alonside the definitions, not far below them. I also think images should be limited to the way they're used in illustrated print dictionaries, i.e. simply illustrating something that can't be fully captured in a written definition. I think we should therefore have images for every taxon, as well as the majority of concrete objects, such as tools, musical instruments, household items, etc. I oppose having images for more abstract senses, adjectives, or verbs (I'm not entirely opposed to GIFs for verbs, provided they're used sparingly). There shouldn't be so many images that we need to relegate them to a gallery. The French Wiktionary handles images in a very balanced way, IMO. See botte, for example. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 19:38, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain: Proposal 1 (allowing "Gallery" sections)

[edit]
  1. Abstain I can't bring myself to think more deeply about this; the proposal is not passing anyway. I don't think galleries are necessarily a bad thing; some entries would benefit from our having rather many images, and these would fit poorly at the right since there they can take only one column. Some entries had gallery sections without the gallery heading, directly under definitions, and that seemed fine. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:54, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Proposal 2 (forbidding "Gallery" sections with fewer than three images)

[edit]

Oppose: Proposal 2 (forbidding "Gallery" sections with fewer than three images)

[edit]
  1. Oppose per Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2017-07/Gallery#oppose proposal 2. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 08:55, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose --Victar (talk) 19:14, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose Seems arbitrary, unnecessary, possibly stupid. DCDuring (talk) 12:16, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose As noted below in "abstain" section. I wonder whether a couple of users have misread the wording of this particular vote. DonnanZ (talk) 16:33, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose -Xbony2 (talk) 19:45, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain: Proposal 2 (forbidding "Gallery" sections with fewer than three images)

[edit]
  1. Abstain - I'm not sure about this one. It is possible to place images side by side using "left", "centre" or "center", and "right". DonnanZ (talk) 11:36, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I made an attempt a while ago with side-by-side images at gravel road. Some feedback would be useful. DonnanZ (talk) 12:35, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Donnanz: I saw the entry on my PC and took a screenshot. Here it is: File:Gravel road entry.png.
    Thanks for the idea, but I found three problems with it which I was hoping could be fixed:
    1. The images are too far apart.
    2. The "Translations" heading got moved a bit to the right, which is awkward.
    3. The images are currently in a "Derived terms" section. I quite like the proposal of specifically using a section named "Gallery" as proposed in this vote. I can't speak for everyone, but I prefer keeping "Derived terms" sections with derived terms only, and using "Gallery" sections for galleries.
    --Daniel Carrero (talk) 12:46, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, maybe you're using a wider monitor than me. Can you try reformatting it using gallery templates or shall I? DonnanZ (talk) 13:03, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    My monitor resolution usually is (and currently is) 1920x1080. What about the use of {{multiple images}} at trousseau? See also Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:multiple images. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 13:22, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Multiple images is complex, I prefer a simpler solution. I have experimented by adding a gallery to gravel road, leaving the old layout there for comparison for the time being. I tried both with and without "mode=packed", the result seems slightly off-centre to me but that may be an optical illusion. Anyway I can give galleries with less than three images the thumbs-up, it looks OK-ish, and I'm changing my vote to oppose a ban on less than 3 images. DonnanZ (talk) 16:29, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for checking different styles. It helps, to see if the vote is going on the right track. If you had found some other better style we could talk about implementing that instead. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 17:53, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Abstain --WikiTiki89 18:10, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Abstain --Droigheann (talk) 21:54, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Abstain — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 17:56, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Abstain. I think entries should rarely have more than three images, and when they do, a gallery section is not the solution. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 19:39, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Proposal 3 (allowing "commonslite" in "Gallery" sections)

[edit]
  1. Support --Daniel Carrero (talk) 08:55, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support - DonnanZ (talk) 11:32, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support -Xbony2 (talk) 19:45, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 17:56, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Proposal 3 (allowing "commonslite" in "Gallery" sections)

[edit]
  1. Oppose --WikiTiki89 18:10, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose --Victar (talk) 19:14, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose Ugly. DCDuring (talk) 12:15, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose --Droigheann (talk) 21:57, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose — Saltmarsh. 05:23, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 19:40, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain: Proposal 3 (allowing "commonslite" in "Gallery" sections)

[edit]

Decision

[edit]

Failed.

  • Proposal 1: 4-8-1 (33.33%)
  • Proposal 2: 0-5-5 (0%)
  • Proposal 3: 4-6-0 (40%)

--Daniel Carrero (talk) 14:21, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After the fact, I got somewhat surprised that this vote failed. When I created this vote, I was under the impression that it would probably easily pass, because it had 100% support in Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2017/June#Allowing "Gallery" section. Granted, I'm only counting the 4 3 people who supported it in the discussion, including myself. The other 3 people wrote comments or questions without taking a position either way, so I'm counting them as "abstain"-ish rather than support or oppose. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 14:26, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Only two people other than yourself expressed support in that discussion. --WikiTiki89 14:39, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize, you are correct. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 15:14, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is why we need votes. No one can be expected to monitor all the Beer parlour discussions ongoing, but people can be expected to monitor votes, in part since there are always only few of them, and it is now even easy to see on the watchlist which votes look like they might pass and therefore need oppose votes if they contain bad proposals. Votes are much better enablers of participation in decision making than Beer parlour discussions. --Dan Polansky (talk) 05:29, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 09:35, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2017-07/Gallery&oldid=78440094"