Template talk:nophoto

From Homestar Runner Wiki

Revision as of 04:29, 1 January 2023

No image vs nophoto

Earlier edit comments such as this one and this talk page have expressed dissatisfaction with how the need for images is tagged. I tried to create this template with the intention of helping when I finally noticed, after the fact, how {{no-image}} is supposed to be used. Nevertheless, the no photo image has been used for quite some time to indicate missing tweet images and, more recently, missing images in general. Furthermore, the no image category seems to have been somewhat neglected. While {{no-image}} adds an invisible notice, I think there is some value in having a big, gray, no image notice remind us that parts of some articles would benefit from an actual image. Perhaps it's time to figure out what the best process will be going forward for pages and twitter pages. In the meantime, I'll be switching direct use of the image with the template whenever possible. --Stux 12:27, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

As one of the ones who's expressed displeasure with the use of File:Nophoto.PNG, I felt I should put some of the reasons why in one place (note that while I mention red links as an alternative to the Nophoto image, those don't need to be the only alternative):

• Using [[File:Nophoto.PNG]] as opposed to linking to non-existent images means that whoever is gonna upload the images will also have to edit the page. (Though this one is more a personal pet peeve than an important issue.)
• Relatedly, clicking a link to a non-existent file leads directly to the file upload form for that filename, while clicking Nophoto.PNG only leads to Nophoto.PNG, which has resulted in confusion.
• Having the nophoto image there may make it, at first glance, look like there's already an image there, which is the opposite of the intended effect of the image; linking to a non-existent page or having text saying that an image should be uploaded, however, would display more obvious indicators of a missing image.
• Using the image alone makes no real indication that an image should be there that is not there; it's meant to mean "no photo available because no one's uploaded it yet", but given the context of the image in record book—with the image displayed in place of Marzipan doing the world record pole vault—it could be interpreted as "no photo available because there's no way to get the photo".

These combined may make people less likely to upload an image that's available. Having this template automatically add pages to the Articles Needing Images category does somewhat address that, and it is good to see that category get more use, but I feel something besides just the Nophoto image should also be added to the template to make its intent clearer. Maybe below the Nophoto image we could add small text linking to the Special:Upload page, or to the upload form for a filename that a new parameter in the template could name. Users did say this version of the no-image template looked ugly, but maybe it won't look as bad with briefer and/or smaller text. DEI DAT VM^┌_{datvm center}\^{super contra}_┘ 14:20, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you DEIDATVM for providing such detailed feedback! You've raised several excellent points I had not yet considered. Hopefully I can suggest some reasonable alternatives here (and maybe try present some of my perspective):

• First off, I don't think whoever uploads the right image is required to edit the relevant page, regardless of method used to indicate that an image is missing (including no method, and the red-link method). So, I hope no one's feeling obligated to make edits on a wiki about dumb animal characters.
• I hadn't considered that the "nophoto" message could be interpreted as "an image doesn't exist and probably will never exist". Therefore, having a different message that is clearer and more explicit about its intentions would be preferable.
• I personally am not a fan of leaving red image links lying around. (In a way, perhaps a pet peeve as well.) The reason for this is twofold: a. psychologically I feel something is wrong with the page: someone mistyped a link reference and the page is seriously broken and needs to be fixed right away; instead of "there is an image that needs to be uploaded". a2. I've also noticed several times where an image was requested by filename and the uploaded image had a completely different filename or it already existed with a different filename, and b. the missing link does not reserve the space usually occupied by the image itself. (This last point leads to my next point:)
• My goal with this template is to take the place of the image itself. That is, it should reserve a box x pixels wide and y pixels high that loudly says "an image needs to be inserted here in the near future". This is reflected in its {{{1}}} parameter. In most cases images are added to tables and I think something that says "add an image here" stands out more than a blank space that makes it look like no image is the norm for that entry. This is more obvious with tweets that may or may not have images associated with them.
• I do like the idea of having the template link to Special:Upload and maybe allow for a suggested image name. And I think it would be good if a clearer message is used. However, I would like to be able to retain the x*y dimensional aspect of the template, even if we have to fake it using a <div> tag or similar. I think early versions of the no-image template were too limited in their use as a notice template for it to be helpful.

So there's my reasoning behind making this template and a suggested course of action based on your feedback. Hopefully we can arrive at a place where everyone is more or less happy with the result. --Stux 16:53, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Hey I made a few edits to simplify the code a bit. In particular, I shortened the default caption so it wouldn't overlap the text in the image. — It's dot com 03:32, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much for cleaning up the template, DC! The shorter message makes sense and it cleanly solves the overlap issue. The fixed up CSS looks cleaner too! I am curious, what does hovul do? I tried searching but I only found something about a hovering overlay iirc. It didn't seem to explain what the class actually did.

Another thing is that my intention behind the caption parameter was misunderstood: I intended the "caption" parameter to be a placeholder where an editor can place a caption that will be present when the image is replaced. In retrospect that seems like a tricky thing to get working right if it's not well understood and it's of low importance since image captions are rare. I've updated the documentation accordingly.

Anywho, Thanks again! Happy Decemberween and Merry New Year! --Stux 15:42, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

The hovul class removes the blue underline from the link (except when the user hovers over it) so it doesn't clash with the red text. Depending on your preferences, this might already be the default behavior. — It's dot com 04:29, 1 January 2023 (UTC)