Forum:Automated Image Infobox

Recently infoboxes were changed so that infobox images are added automatically. This was done without discussion, and has resulted in poor quality images on character infoboxes. While this does automatically update pages, it also results in bad quality images, and makes manually changing the image more difficult. 19:34, August 12, 2013 (UTC)

Discussion
None of the images were changed, they were only renamed. How are they any worse? 19:57, August 12, 2013 (UTC)

Nothing should be done automatically. SeaTerror (talk) 20:03, August 12, 2013 (UTC)

If you want to have better and deeper details on the situation, let me explain it to you. I just found out about the whole thing about 30 minutes ago, so tell me if there's any mistakes and I'll fix it.

A while ago, Sff and Gal (as far as I know) changed the infobox template so infobox images are added automatically. This was done without any prior discussion with the community, have resulted in some conflicts and some users are against it. While this does automatically update pages for the lazy fairly quickly (I literally cannot think of any other pros of having this feature), the feature sometimes adds poor quality images or renders to infoboxes, causes confusion on how to add an image to the infobox, and is challenging to use for inexperienced editors.

I personally am against having this feature. Firstly, a big change like this should not have been done without any prior discussion with the community of the wiki. Secondly, as far as I can see, this was particularly designed for the lazy and it is rather challenging to use if you do not know how to use it, or am new to the wiki. The feature also causes confusion on how to add an image to the infobox, and only make adding an image to the infobox even challenging for new users and potentially chase off new editors. Stick to something simple and easy to understand and use, guys! The feature also add poor quality images to infoboxes, and I like this wiki to be of top quality works, not shitty and rushed works. Also, renders are sometimes added to the infoboxes. There was a forum about renders, and the decision was to not use a render as an infobox image, period. Automatic things make mistakes, and this feature is hard to fix if you do not know how to use it. Manually adding an image is significantly easier to use for both the inexperience and experienced editors, as it's plain and simple to use, compared to the automated image infobox.

As for the pros, I literally cannot think of any good pros to keep this feature other than that this was made for the incredibly lazy people.

Finally, ever heard of "If it ain't broken, then don't fix it"? 20:10, August 12, 2013 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more with you, Jade. This new system just ruins the editor to page interface. It works for some, but not for others. Sometimes image sizing needs to be more specific than just 200px. If this is some kind of vandalism deterrent, it's a token effort that doesn't need to be taken. Also, this should have been discussed instead of just going ahead with it. Charging into this without going through the proper channels is what angers me the most about this whole thing. 20:19, August 12, 2013 (UTC)

It's actually quite easy to use, if you check the actual parameters being used.

The pros are obvious, which are to prevent vandalism, and to make sure the images are consistently placed on all the pages. If the situation calls for it, use the old image parameter. There's no reason to complain about something that works on the majority of pages. 20:40, August 12, 2013 (UTC)

First of all, if there are any problems with the automation, the old manual code still works and is entirely useable.

If the issue about code, then let me say this. It's much easier to deal with in the automated style. Before the automation, we had the code for 4 separate images due to the need for the pre/post and manga/anime switch templates which were kinda glitchy and a complete shit-show in terms of image name/size. The automated version improves all of those issues, the only exception being the size thing (as far as I know). The images themselves can still be edited just as easily as before, except now we make sure that users upload a new version of the old infobox picture, instead of uploading a new one, as the policy is.

I believe the best solution here is simply to write up a guide on how to deal with the automation on the FAQ and to make changes to the template that allow image size to be more easily altered. There is no need to overreact and undo all the work we've done. And this project had the approval of image team leaders, an admin, and as far as I know, most editors who actually edit images frequently, and it seemed to be (and still is, really) a minor issue. 20:49, August 12, 2013 (UTC)

Approval or not, there was still no formal community discussion. Even with approval, something this big should be discussed at the very least as a sign of good faith. 21:19, August 12, 2013 (UTC)

I agree; changes that affect almost every page on the wiki should not be made without a discussion and possibly a poll. 23:04, August 12, 2013 (UTC)

down with the automatic system-- 00:09, August 13, 2013 (UTC)

I know it does seem rather uninformed for them to change it like this, but they did include the option of manually placing the images, should we find difficulties, right? Sometimes, things like this, we just change it first, then bring it up if, and only if, issues arise. Attack first, ask questions later. 00:19, August 13, 2013 (UTC)

The FAQ has been updated. 00:24, August 13, 2013 (UTC)

Even if it was done without informing the community (which I admit was a mistake) that issue is unrelated to whether or not we actually use the system. How it was implemented is not related to the quality of the automation. So rather than have a conversation about how we should have discussed it, let's just actually discuss it. 01:34, August 13, 2013 (UTC)