Forum:CT:Infobox Image Galleries - Various Amendments

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Infobox Image Galleries - Various Amendments
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 Votes 1-3: Support, Vote 4: Three images, Vote 5: Oppose. —spookywillowwtalk 03:46, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Original Infobox image gallery CT, for reference: Forum:CT:Infobox image galleries
Original CT for droid infobox galleries, for reference: Forum:CT:Infobox image galleries - Droids

This Consensus Track has two separate amendments up for vote with regards to our infobox gallery policy. The first is a single-vote amendment regarding the number of images allowed for the {{Droid}} template. The second is a single-vote amendment regarding the use of infobox galleries on the {{Individual ship}} template. The third is a multi-vote amendment regarding the use of infobox galleries on the {{Species}} template and the number of images permitted, as well as which images to prioritize.

Vote 1: Droids

This vote proposes an amendment to the infobox gallery policy, so that the policy on regarding the {{Droid}} template's infobox galleries be altered to increase the number of images permitted for use from two to three, as would be the case for any other character subject. More specifically, the passing of this vote would change the wording from
"Infobox galleries on droid articles: may contain a maximum of two images if significant visible differences are present, such as the gray-plated and gold-plated versions of C-3PO."
to (changes underlined):
"Infobox galleries on droid articles: may contain a maximum of three images if significant visible differences are present, such as the incomplete, gray-plated, and gold-plated versions of C-3PO."

Note that the images linked in the drafted amendment are not a reflection of what images should necessarily be utilized in the infobox gallery for C-3PO should the amendment pass.

This proposed revision also fixes an error with the linked images/wording of the policy; at present, the policy reads "gray-plated" but links to an image of C-3PO with no plating at all. This is corrected in the revision, where "gray-plated" now links to an image of C-3PO from Episode II. Note that this is specified for clarity on the changes made in the revision; this should not be taken in mind with the implication that this error being corrected is contingent on this vote passing. It can be fixed regardless of the outcome.

Support

  1. Even the reasoning of some droids having more than 2 distinct designs aside, it feels redundant to restrict droids to only 2 images when every other character is able to have 3 images. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 02:46, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
  2. JMAS Jolly Trooper Hey, it's me! 04:11, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
  3. NanoLuukeCloning Facility 07:25, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
  4. Make it four. Obviously we need the red arm version of 3PO, too. :P Master FredceriqueCommerce Guild(talk) (he/him) 07:37, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
  5. Imperators II(Talk) 09:12, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
  6. --Vitus InfinitusTalk 13:09, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
  7. Ayrehead02 (talk) 13:54, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
  8. Rsand 30 (talk) 15:23, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
  9. AmazinglyCool Nightsisters symbol - JFO (talk) 15:25, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
  10. Bonzane10 Bonzane10-Sig 17:08, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
  11. OOM 224 17:19, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
  12. —spookywillowwtalk 17:37, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
  13. Wok142 (talk) 18:38, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
  14. ThePedantry (talk) 09:31, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
  15. Cade GalacticRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit Calrayn 15:06, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
  16. Dr. Kermit(Complain.) 16:52, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
  17. Lewisr (talk) 06:02, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Vote 2: Individual ships

This vote proposes an addition to the infobox gallery policy, so that the {{Individual ship}} template be given compatibility with infobox galleries, with a maximum of two images permitted. More specifically, this amendment proposes that the following be placed beneath the clause regarding location infobox galleries:
"Infobox galleries on individual ship articles: may contain a maximum of two images if significant visible differences are present, such as the Millennium Falcon under Lando Calrissian's ownership and the same vessel under Han Solo's ownership."

Note that the images linked in the drafted amendment are not a reflection of what images should necessarily be utilized in the infobox gallery for the Millennium Falcon should the amendment pass.

Support

  1. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 02:46, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
  2. Cade GalacticRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit Calrayn 03:05, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
  3. JMAS Jolly Trooper Hey, it's me! 04:22, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
  4. Bonzane10 Bonzane10-Sig 05:31, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
  5. NanoLuukeCloning Facility 07:25, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
  6. What about circle disc versus rectangle disc Falcon? :P Master FredceriqueCommerce Guild(talk) (he/him) 07:37, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
  7. Imperators II(Talk) 09:12, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
  8. --Vitus InfinitusTalk 13:09, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
  9. Ayrehead02 (talk) 13:54, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
  10. Rsand 30 (talk) 15:23, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
  11. AmazinglyCool Nightsisters symbol - JFO (talk) 15:25, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
  12. —spookywillowwtalk 17:37, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
  13. Wok142 (talk) 18:39, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
  14. ThePedantry (talk) 09:31, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
  15. Dr. Kermit(Complain.) 16:52, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
  16. Lewisr (talk) 06:02, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Vote 3: Species (Part 1)

This vote proposes an addition to the infobox gallery policy, so that the {{Species}} template be given compatibility with infobox galleries. It does not, however, account for the number of images permitted in the infobox gallery, which is covered by Vote 4. More specifically, this amendment proposes that the following be placed beneath the clause regarding location infobox galleries (or, should Vote 2 pass, beneath the clause regarding individual ship infobox galleries):
"Infobox galleries on species articles: may contain a maximum of [number] images if significant visible differences are present, such as the Otolla and Ankura subspecies of Gungan, or the sexual dimorphism present between individuals assigned female at birth and individuals assigned male at birth of the Dathomirian Zabrak subspecies."

Note that the images linked in the drafted amendment are not a reflection of what images should necessarily be utilized in the infobox gallery for the Gungans and Dathomirian Zabrak should the amendment pass.

Should this amendment pass, "[number]" as seen in the excerpt should be replaced with the number of permitted images decided upon in vote 4. For example, if "Three images" gained the majority vote, "[number]" should be changed to read "three".

Support

  1. Obviously for some species (like humans, or Nikto in Legends) there are group images that'd work best. But I feel like infobox galleries would be useful for those where that is not the case. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 02:46, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
  2. Personally, I think we should still rely on art/images that feature both like on Devaronian, but if we don't have a good choice, then sure. Cade GalacticRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit Calrayn 03:03, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
  3. JMAS Jolly Trooper Hey, it's me! 04:20, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
  4. NanoLuukeCloning Facility 07:25, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
  5. Master FredceriqueCommerce Guild(talk) (he/him) 07:37, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
  6. Imperators II(Talk) 09:13, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
  7. Ayrehead02 (talk) 13:55, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
  8. Rsand 30 (talk) 15:23, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
  9. AmazinglyCool Nightsisters symbol - JFO (talk) 15:25, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
  10. OOM 224 17:18, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
  11. —spookywillowwtalk 17:37, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
  12. --Vitus InfinitusTalk 14:44, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
  13. ThePedantry (talk) 09:31, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
  14. Dr. Kermit(Complain.) 16:52, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
  15. Lewisr (talk) 06:02, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. I share Cade's sentiment of relying on a single image that may feature as much variation as possible. If not, then it's worth expanding in the body itself. Feels like an overkill with the gallery usage imo. Bonzane10 Bonzane10-Sig 05:29, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Worth keeping in mind that using the infobox galleries is not a requirement; as both Cade and I also brought up, it does serve as a suitable alternative to showcase multiple (distinct) subspecies in an infobox in cases where we do not have a decent choice for a single image. Single images like collages or pre-existing images are still allowed and acceptable, but this is an option for if it's deemed more appropriate in a particular circumstance. Showing as many species/sexual dimorphisms as possible in the infobox (within reason) would be more representative of the overall species, I feel, and I don't see why it matters if that's achieved with a single image or multiple. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 07:26, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Vote 4: Species (Part 2)

This vote is conditional on vote 3 passing. Should vote 3 not pass, the results of this vote should be ignored. This vote will be according to a simple plurality.

This vote is solely regarding the number of images permitted in the Species infobox gallery. The reason this is up for a separate vote rather than implementing the proposed amendment with a preset number is due to the variable number of subspecies present for various species. For example, some species, such as the Gungans and Zabrak, have as few as two subspecies, while others, such as the Nikto, may have five or even more subspecies. As such, four options are proposed, each corresponding to the number of images that they would permit for the Species infobox gallery should it be implemented.

Note: Should a species' number of (pictured) subspecies exceed the number chosen in this vote, it may be more appropriate to use a single image presenting a collage of the subspecies or a group showcasing multiple members of different subspecies. This note does not denote any proposal of policy; merely a suggestion for an alternative solution should circumstances differ from the chosen quantity.

Two images

  1. If this do pass, limiting it to two would be best. I dont mind three, i suppose, but more than that is just way too much. Bonzane10 Bonzane10-Sig 05:30, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
  2. Cade GalacticRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit Calrayn 05:35, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
    I'm only voting this for equal representation, subspecies depiction should be covered on their own articles. NanoLuukeCloning Facility 07:25, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
    I say start at two for now. Subspecies can also have images in their own infoboxes, and collages are good, too. This can also always be expanded later. Master FredceriqueCommerce Guild(talk) (he/him) 07:37, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
  3. Not decided yet on Vote 3 but if it passes it should be two for now --Vitus InfinitusTalk 13:09, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Three images

  1. Voting on this one now; I feel like three is an appropriate middle ground. Most species won't have more than three subspecies and they almost certainly won't have more than two different overall sets of traits with regards to sexual dimorphism. There are obviously still outliers like the Nikto, but as mentioned on the note for this amendment, collages/group images are a suitable solution when in excess of the image gallery allotment. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 03:44, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
  2. I think three should be suficient for most cases as a good number of species will have two images to show sexual dimorphism in adults and a third image to show a juvenille aged member of the species. For stuff like Nikto we can vote in specific exceptions since those cases will be very rare I'd imagine. Ayrehead02 (talk) 13:57, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
  3. Changing my vote, per Ayre arguments. NanoLuukeCloning Facility 14:21, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
  4. JMAS Jolly Trooper Hey, it's me! 14:33, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
  5. Rsand 30 (talk) 15:23, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
  6. AmazinglyCool Nightsisters symbol - JFO (talk) 15:25, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
  7. I hadn't even considered developmental stages. Master FredceriqueCommerce Guild(talk) (he/him) 16:28, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
  8. ^^ OOM 224 17:17, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
  9. Leaving a brief note: 4 and 5 tabs both look... awful on mobile, to say the least. Statistically, roughly 2/3 of readers on Wookieepedia read the site on mobile. Seems unfair to them to present them with a very-broken looking infobox. (And there's no easy way to fix this with mobilecss...)—spookywillowwtalk 17:37, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
  10. ThePedantry (talk) 09:31, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
  11. Dr. Kermit(Complain.) 16:52, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
  12. Lewisr (talk) 06:02, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Four images

Five images

Just due to Nikto currently stating they have "at least" three subspecies, but in Legends, there are five. So it's entirely likely, if not probable that the other two will also eventually make it into new Canon sooner or later. - JMAS Jolly Trooper Hey, it's me! 04:19, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Vote 5: Species (Part 3)

This vote is conditional on vote 3 passing. Should vote 3 not pass, the results of this vote should be ignored.

This vote is a clause regarding the amendment proposed in vote 3. This amendment will add one of the below proposed clauses to the same amendment in vote 3, or none at all should Vote 5 fail. The proposed clauses are as follows, with the difference between each underlined:
Option 1: "Should a species both display sexual dimorphism and have multiple subspecies, only the subspecies should be shown in the infobox gallery."
Option 2: "Should a species both display sexual dimorphism and have multiple subspecies, only images displaying the species' sexual dimorphism should be shown in the infobox gallery."
Option 3: "Should a species both display sexual dimorphism and have multiple subspecies, both should be included in the infobox gallery permitting they do not exceed the maximum allowed images; should they be in excess, only the subspecies should be shown."
Option 4: "Should a species both display sexual dimorphism and have multiple subspecies, both should be included in the infobox gallery permitting they do not exceed the maximum allowed images; should they be in excess, only images displaying the species' sexual dimorphism should be shown."

Note: Once again, collages/group images may be a suitable workaround to show both subspecies and sexual dimorphism should either option 1 or option 2 pass. This note is, once again, not for policy, just a suggestion regarding another potential solution.

Option 1

I feel it'd be confusing to have both sexual dimorphism and subspecies in the gallery at once. If both really need to be displayed, I'd say it'd be best to have the subspecies as the gallery tabs and then show the sexual dimorphism via collage or an unedited image where both are visible. The article for a subspecies itself can certainly have a gallery showcasing sexual dimorphism, though. To more simply clarify through and example: Zabrak would just have gallery tabs for Iridonian and Dathomirian, while the differences between Dathomirian afab and amab individuals would be showcased in the infobox gallery on that subspecies' own page. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 02:46, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Option 2

Per my previous vote. NanoLuukeCloning Facility 07:25, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
The subspecies will have their own articles with infoboxes. We don't have different articles for the different sexes of a species, so this is the more important distinction to include in the species infobox. Master FredceriqueCommerce Guild(talk) (he/him) 07:37, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Option 3

JMAS Jolly Trooper Hey, it's me! 04:24, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Option 4

Oppose clause

  1. Specifying sexual dimorphism and subspecies is policy bloat. The status quo preferring group pictures, coupled with increased gallery limits if the first few votes above pass, would work more than fine. OOM 224 10:48, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
  2. This doesn't allow for images showing differing life stages, which for something like the Aki-Aki would be extremely useful. Ayrehead02 (talk) 14:00, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
  3. Cade GalacticRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit Calrayn 14:06, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
  4. NanoLuukeCloning Facility 14:21, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
  5. JMAS Jolly Trooper Hey, it's me! 14:31, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
  6. Rsand 30 (talk) 15:23, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
  7. Master FredceriqueCommerce Guild(talk) (he/him) 16:28, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
  8. Bonzane10 Bonzane10-Sig 17:09, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
  9. —spookywillowwtalk 17:37, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
  10. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 21:09, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
  11. --Vitus InfinitusTalk 14:45, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
  12. ThePedantry (talk) 09:31, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
  13. Lewisr (talk) 06:02, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Discuss

  • Even though I'm the one putting the CT up I'm abstaining from vote 4 for now until I see how opinions on it sway. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 02:46, 28 January 2025 (UTC)