Forum:CT:Alt text

This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record.
The result of the debate was support vote 1, oppose vote 2. OOM 224 19:34, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Forwarding from SH; seemed to have a decent amount of support off the bat so figured to forward it and get it out of the backlog.

Note: The Kyle Katarn image example (like, the file itself) got deleted by Culator in 2008. This is swapping out the example mostly just because of that; the example should be a currently-existing image.

Vote 1: Optional alt text

As noted below, if this fails, the outcome of vote 2 is moot.

For Wookieepedia:Layout_Guide#Images:

    • Change example to:
[[File:AlderaanRoyalPalace-OWKpI.png|thumb|right|300px|alt=A palace with several light-colored spires set atop a lush, mountainous landscape|The Royal Palace of Alderaan, in Aldera]]
  • Add bullet to section, reading: "Adding alt text to an image is optional. If included, it should be placed directly before the caption." — to be placed below the alternation point and above the quality bullet.

Support

  1. A lot of wikis are moving this direction; good to hop on the train. If anyone's curious where the "before the caption" comes from; that's the Fandom-recommended placement.—spookywillowwtalk 02:58, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
  2. Lewisr (talk) 03:15, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
  3. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 03:17, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
  4. Rsand 30 (talk) 03:18, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
  5. Yasen Nestorov (talk) 04:19, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
  6. Master FredceriqueCommerce Guild(talk) (he/him) 04:20, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
  7. CometSmudge (talk) 04:21, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
  8. JMAS Jolly Trooper Hey, it's me! 04:22, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
  9. ThePedantry (talk) 05:07, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
  10. Panther436 RedNihilEye (talk) 06:00, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
  11. Imperators II(Talk) 07:05, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
  12. Ayrehead02 (talk) 08:50, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
  13. Bonzane10 Bonzane10-Sig 09:46, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
  14. NanoLuukeCloning Facility 09:52, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
  15. OOM 224 11:43, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
  16. NBDani TeamFireballLogo-Collider(they/them)Yeager's Repairs 11:51, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
  17. 01miki10 Open comlink 12:04, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
  18. Jedi Sarith LeKit (talk) 16:23, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
  19. grunny@wookieepedia:~$ 16:33, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
  20. Wok142 (talk) 19:41, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
  21. ThrawnChiss7 Mitth symbol Assembly Cupola 19:01, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
  22. Cade GalacticRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit Calrayn 04:35, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
  23. --Vitus InfinitusTalk 01:25, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
  24. Tommy-Macaroni (he/they) 14:37, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Vote 2: Sub-vote for mandatory

Including this due to a point raised on the SH: to make alt text mandatory instead of optional. If the above vote fails, this vote is moot, as it's a step further than. If both votes pass as support, the wording from this vote (vote 2) would be implemented instead of the above.

Practical impact? Most of the site won't see it used, most articles aren't policy-compliant fully anyway. But if this wording were to become policy, it would mean any SA that passes from now onward / or goes through review will need to have it. Some brief arguments for this are that it represents a stronger commitment to accessibility/screenreaders, helps SEO, helps when images fail to load on a page. So, the way I see it anyway, is that it basically would affect SAs ("complete" pages) in practice because people can add incomplete things to non-SAs anyways and that's just the way of things.

To the above bullet, altered to the modified "Alt text should be added to all images and placed directly before the caption."

Support

  1. I've no clue if this will pass; and I'm chill if only the optional clause does. But I do genuinely think maybe we should just bite the bullet and make it a thing needed for a "complete" page (so, SAs). If we truly want to commit to being the best SW encyclopedia out there, that means trying to make the reader experience better. Alttext isn't new and isn't going away and has measurable benefits, not just for wikis, but every website out there. I think it's worth the leap. We get image additions all the time without thumb, alignment, and px as it is; another editor simply stops by and cleans them up, so while a lot of images will prob get added without alt-text if this passes, I'd say that's not a problem. Those can be easily cleaned up too if/when status'd or as people see them.—spookywillowwtalk 02:58, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
  2. ThePedantry (talk) 03:02, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
  3. Per Spooky. NBDani TeamFireballLogo-Collider(they/them)Yeager's Repairs 03:07, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
  4. Lewisr (talk) 03:15, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
    I agree that this should be mandatory for accessibility reasons, but some refinements on how concise descriptions in the alt text need to be should perhaps be made. For example, in alt text, would I describe Yarael Poof as "a long-necked alien," "a Quermian," or simply "Yarael Poof?" - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 03:17, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
    Yasen Nestorov (talk) 04:19, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
  5. Ok with this so long as we don't start stripping status for lack of alt text. Master FredceriqueCommerce Guild(talk) (he/him) 04:20, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Rsand 30 (talk) 03:18, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
  2. CometSmudge (talk) 04:21, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
  3. JMAS Jolly Trooper Hey, it's me! 04:22, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
  4. SorcererSupreme21 (talk) 05:26, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
  5. I'm not against this in principle, but considering it will mainly affect SAs I really think there needs to be standards set before making it mandatory. E.g. are we trying to make it as concise as possible or as detailed as possible? are we describing all elements of the image, or just the main subject relevant to the article? I'm not sure what the right options are and there should be more discussion. Panther436 RedNihilEye (talk) 06:00, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
  6. Yeah no, precisely per Panther. Let's see some guidelines or descriptions before making it mandatory. Imperators II(Talk) 07:05, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
  7. Changing vote per Panther and Imperators. I agree it should be mandatory but it should probably need more clarification on what would be expected of an alt text description. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 07:47, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
  8. Ayrehead02 (talk) 08:50, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
  9. Per Panther. NanoLuukeCloning Facility 09:52, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
  10. Yasen Nestorov (talk) 10:02, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
  11. As Panther said above, I support making alt text as a status article precedent with some discussion on defining what a good alt text is, and I don't think it's something that can be easily defined in policy nor should it be there. I also feel like this is something that could turn into an instruction creep situation where we end up messaging folks with warnings about omitting alt text. OOM 224 11:43, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
    • I do want to briefly point out the incongruency of the above statement. If something fails to become policy, or fails a vote rather, that thing generally does not become status article precedent. Such as, the numbers (spelling out fully or using numbers) disagreement recently. Or, the very common pushback to makimg objections about any optional feature (concept gallery, optional chronological events etc.) So; again put this up on a whim and did not expect it to pass. But I firmly disagree with the notion that the boards would have any sway or authority to try to make people do this via precedent if its optional, and since it is only optional; not even reccomended.—spookywillowwtalk 13:13, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
      • We probably have a different idea of precedent here. I get the impression that this subvote isn't so much against including alt text and moreso about the requirement aspect of it. When I say status article precedent, I mean raising the issue of alt text on nominations but deferring to nominator preference if they insist on a certain way, rather than giving the boards power to leave a formal objection. OOM 224 14:10, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
        • Yes; my point is rather that it's very common to discourage objections on optional features, and they've every right to be thrown out as invalid. And in the case of a vote against something; that pretty much never becomes precedent because er, the community voted against it. So, assuming this fails, the "raising the issue" part of it is something I'd object to having a nominator consider or be coerced into. We don't press nominators in any regard to add indexes, unrelated events to prev/conc/next fields, concept art galleries, or Interactive Maps, because these all passed as explicitly optional with no "reccomended" attached. If someday alt text gets changed to "recommended, but optional" it's something the boards would bring up akin to these precedents, but not while it's just "optional" full stop.—spookywillowwtalk 14:16, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
  12. 01miki10 Open comlink 12:04, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
  13. grunny@wookieepedia:~$ 16:33, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
  14. ThrawnChiss7 Mitth symbol Assembly Cupola 19:01, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
  15. Per Panther. Would love to support this, if I had any idea what the expectations would be. Tommy-Macaroni (he/they) 14:37, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Discuss