After much delay and discussion over the months, may I present this proposal for infobox image galleries to be added to Wookieepedia. I have compiled some potential policy wording as well as some examples based on this proposal that can be seen linked here, below the policy text the same as included below. I've heavily truncated the infobox content for ease of reading, so just ignore the stuff below the image galleries themselves. OOM 224 (he/him/they) 15:16, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
[UPDATES BOLDED: trimmed proposed rules 1 and 2 per discussion below. They can be amended in later votes if deemed necessary. OOM 224 (he/him/they) 16:50, 24 September 2024 (UTC)]
Add to the Wookieepedia:Layout Guide#Main image section:
Infobox galleries
A gallery may be used in the "image" field of an article's infobox if the subject has multiple distinct appearances. Infobox image selection is subject to consensus votes in the case of a dispute, and galleries should be used as sparingly as possible.
Infobox galleries must abide by the following general rules:
- The most representative image of the article subject should be considered the main image and be placed first in the gallery. The gallery should then be ordered by in-universe chronology. [UPDATE: The main image of the article subject is placed first in the gallery. The gallery should then be ordered by in-universe chronology.]
- All images except the main image may be reused in the article body. No more than 1/3 of the article's total number of images, including reused images, can be in the infobox. [UPDATE: All images except the main image may be reused in the article body.]
- Images should be of the same dimension ratios whenever possible to prevent the infobox from shifting in length.
Infobox galleries on character articles: may contain a maximum of five images. No two image can be from the same piece of media or have the same person portraying the character unless there is at least 10 years' age difference or major visible differences, including between a character's unmasked and masked appearances if either one is particularly significant to the character, such as clone troopers' personalized helmets.
Infobox galleries on organization articles: may contain a maximum of two images to feature the logo and the members. The organization logo should be the main image.
Infobox galleries on location articles: may contain a maximum of two images if significant visible differences are present, such as the intact and fractured versions of Jedha.
ABY/BBY dates are preferred as image tab titles to reduce clutter (example: "9 ABY" and "19 BBY" for Ahsoka Tano). However, in certain cases it may be more precise to label a subject's distinct states instead (example: "Logo" and "Members" for Clone Force 99's logo and group picture; "Intact and "Fractured" for Jedha before and after its partial destruction; "Tenebrae," "Vitiate," and "Valkorion" for Tenebrae's three incarnations; "Face" and "Helmet" for Fives with an uncovered face and with his helmet on; "Clawdite" and "Human" for the shapeshifting Zam Wesell). When using the two methods in combination, maintain consistency by making use of parantheses (example: "1 BBY," "19 BBY," and "19 BBY (helmet)" for Rex).
Discussion
- Long have I waited… In all seriousness congrats on finally posting this and I agree with almost all of the proposal; however, I believe the default/main image should still be the most chronologically recent/contemporary one as it clears up a lot of possible confusion/debate about what their most “iconic” or representative depiction may be. I can assure you there’d be disagreements on whether to show Anakin or Vader first in his infobox. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 16:09, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- We get disagreements on this every now and then, so I think it's better to leave things open to voting on a case-by-case basis rather than to implement the latest-in-chronology standard here. OOM 224 (he/him/they) 10:02, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- I believe there will be more disagreements over which depiction is the more iconic or representative than whether or not to use the chronologically recent image, but that's maybe just me. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 18:08, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think it would be best to just have the most chronologically recent image as the main one so that no disagreement would arise at all. We all have our opinions on what is iconic, so I think it would be best to avoid such a subjective topic. If only the main image in the gallery is not chronological, it could get confusing to people looking at the infobox as to where the “iconic” image goes chronologically. Having the gallery be chronological would also make it look organized.Drour1234 (talk) 21:41, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- Why is it bad if disagreement arises? We have consensus policy to handle this. The fact that there are varying opinions argues in favor of, not against, having discussions about individual infobox images rather than using a blanket one-size-fits-all-but-not-that-well approach. And the main image doesn't have to be the first one; it's possible to have alternate image links both before and after the main, allowing the main to maintain its place in the chronology. Asithol (talk) 21:25, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- While I agree on that case-by-case is better since we can vote on cases, I do want to point out that alternate image links before and after the main isn't possible for mobile (like, at all) due to Fandom's limits on functionality. It's also extraordinarily hard to get working properly even on desktop; Portable Infoboxes post UCP always default to the first tab on many wikis that use this. We would see a sharp increase in page load times with the custom coding we'd need to make that happen. Not attached to chronology personally with images but do want to point out for above that the technical aspect of it is not as simple as stated above (mainly due to a lot of CodeMirror stuff being broken right now).—spookywillowwtalk 21:28, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Noted. Hopefully "Fandom's limits on functionality" and "stuff being broken" are temporary conditions. Asithol (talk) 23:21, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- It's not really up to us but it is pretty low priority (as it's not on Fandom's roadmap for the year, and they publicly post about all bugfixes/CodeMirror objectives/their own projects). I agree that it would be nice to do, but while technically on their radar, as with many things, I would not say it would be fixed anytime soon and basing a CT that requires it to work would be inadvisable as some of the more major CodeMirror bugs have been around since 2021 and still not fixed. Such a thing would be much better voted in if/when they fix it instead. But that only really matters for chronological purposes; if the main image displayed is always first, even if out of chronology, then we don't need any extra code for that.—spookywillowwtalk 23:26, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Noted. Hopefully "Fandom's limits on functionality" and "stuff being broken" are temporary conditions. Asithol (talk) 23:21, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- While I agree on that case-by-case is better since we can vote on cases, I do want to point out that alternate image links before and after the main isn't possible for mobile (like, at all) due to Fandom's limits on functionality. It's also extraordinarily hard to get working properly even on desktop; Portable Infoboxes post UCP always default to the first tab on many wikis that use this. We would see a sharp increase in page load times with the custom coding we'd need to make that happen. Not attached to chronology personally with images but do want to point out for above that the technical aspect of it is not as simple as stated above (mainly due to a lot of CodeMirror stuff being broken right now).—spookywillowwtalk 21:28, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Why is it bad if disagreement arises? We have consensus policy to handle this. The fact that there are varying opinions argues in favor of, not against, having discussions about individual infobox images rather than using a blanket one-size-fits-all-but-not-that-well approach. And the main image doesn't have to be the first one; it's possible to have alternate image links both before and after the main, allowing the main to maintain its place in the chronology. Asithol (talk) 21:25, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- I think it would be best to just have the most chronologically recent image as the main one so that no disagreement would arise at all. We all have our opinions on what is iconic, so I think it would be best to avoid such a subjective topic. If only the main image in the gallery is not chronological, it could get confusing to people looking at the infobox as to where the “iconic” image goes chronologically. Having the gallery be chronological would also make it look organized.Drour1234 (talk) 21:41, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- I believe there will be more disagreements over which depiction is the more iconic or representative than whether or not to use the chronologically recent image, but that's maybe just me. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 18:08, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- We get disagreements on this every now and then, so I think it's better to leave things open to voting on a case-by-case basis rather than to implement the latest-in-chronology standard here. OOM 224 (he/him/they) 10:02, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- This will be a day long remembered. It has seen the end of an outdated infobox and soon will see a new modern version. 100% support this. - JMAS
Hey, it's me! 20:43, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- I will also add what I mentioned to OOM earlier today. If the mostly-abandoned Star Wars: Legion wiki is using this function on multiple pages, we should be too. - JMAS Hey, it's me! 21:29, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for prompting me! OOM 224 (he/him/they) 10:02, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- I will also add what I mentioned to OOM earlier today. If the mostly-abandoned Star Wars: Legion wiki is using this function on multiple pages, we should be too. - JMAS
- Not sure why this needs the "No more than 1/3 of the article's total number of images, including reused images, can be in the infobox." bit. Why is the number of the article's total images relevant to the ability to use the infobox galleries for their intended purpose - to give a quick and comprehensive overview of any dramatic changes in a subject's visual appearance. Like, if the Anakin article only had those four or five images, we'd only be able to show two or three of them - why is that? Imperators II(Talk) 07:17, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- There seemed to be an informal agreement on this arrangement in one of the Discord discussions. I do feel it's more sensible not to restrict the rest of the article's image selection by policy though, so it might be worth making this a subvote in the CT. OOM 224 (he/him/they) 10:02, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- grumble... so this will complicate Infoboxer, I expect. How are we implementing this in terms of the actual code? I'd much prefer to simply implement image#= and caption#= parameters, and having the gallery tag on the backend, than to use the actual gallery coding on individual articles. Keeping the infobox as an actual template rather than embedding wikicode into the articles. Cade
Calrayn 14:26, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how this works on Wook in particular given our infoboxes are more custom, but default Fandom infoboxes are built-in compatible with galleries. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 17:13, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Would there be much of a difference either way? If it would be convenient for the editor to have the gallery feature implemented within the infobox templates themselves, then that would be grand, though I also think the existing gallery wikicode is straightforward enough. OOM 224 (he/him/they) 10:02, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- Definite hard agree on using parameters and keeping the gallery tag on the backend; that is how most wikis who do it have it, both for mobile functionality compatibility and otherwise. It may also allow for it to sense when there's more than one image and put it into a relevant tracking category, which would be helpful. Gallery tags in infobox oft get messy.—spookywillowwtalk 21:33, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Per JMAS and Cade. JediMasterMacaroni(Talk) 21:56, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- This will also benefit actor and performer pages. We can have the actor as the main image (if available), and them in character, or several characters in the case of someone like Silas Carson, displayed as well. - JMAS
Hey, it's me! 21:08, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- I support this. NanoLuukeCloning Facility 15:13, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- This is really good work, OOM. Glad to see this finally coming to fruition. Just, be sure to includes a code example within the policy. NanoLuukeCloning Facility 15:13, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- I like the idea this. I would also say if the character has a few noteworthy helmet designs, they could also go in the infoboxes if it doesn't get too crowded. For example, Boil and Wolffe should remain unmasked in the primary image, while their Phase I and Phase II helmets could both appear in the infoboxes as well.StarWarsFan327 (talk) 10:32, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
- That could happen, aye. I believe the current rules should cover it. OOM 224 (he/him/they) 16:50, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
