Wiktionary:Votes/2016-12/Boldface in image captions

Voting on: Whether to make the headwords in image captions bold. Example entry without bold: this revision; example entry with bold: this revision.

• Option 1: Make the headword bold

  Follow-up action: Feel free to edit in volumes to make the headwords in image captions bold.

• Option 2: Avoid making the headword bold

  Follow-up action: Feel free to edit in volumes to remove boldface from the headwords in image captions.

Schedule:

• Vote starts: 00:00, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
• Vote ends: 23:59, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
• Vote created: Dan Polansky (talk) 13:16, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Discussion:

• Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2011/March#Boldface in image captions
• Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2016/December#Vote: Boldface in image captions
• Wiktionary talk:Votes/2016-12/Boldface in image captions

1. Support heckin mav'rick — Z. b"A. — 10:24, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
2. Support per Dick Laurent. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 01:16, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

1. Support: I think it's unnecessarily intrusive. It's already evident elsewhere on the page what the headword is. — SMUconlaw (talk) 11:04, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
2. Support Not really necessary. Some captions might not even include the headword. Equinox ◑ 11:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

   Indeed, some captions don't use the headword. DonnanZ (talk) 10:32, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

3. Support --Daniel Carrero (talk) 12:28, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
4. Support -Xbony2 (talk) 13:58, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
5. Support. I'm all for consistency! I don't really care whether all or no headwords are bold in captions, but I'm supporting the winning option to help ensure that one of them passes. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:50, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

   Striking for now. Boldface can be useful for diagrams that have a lot of text in the key, such as at sternpost, so I'll have to think about this. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 01:44, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

   @Andrew Sheedy: The caption in sternpost is unhelpful; it should only identify that sternpost is number 4 without providing labels for other numbered items. Furthermore, an image that needs a caption for the reader to see which part is meant is not the best possible one; a better image can be made in which the part can be highlighted e.g. using red outline, by using white background for non-highlighted parts or via other means. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:55, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

   That's a good point, though I do sometimes find it helpful when looking up multiple related terms to find them all on a diagram and see how they all relate to each other. I am reinstating my vote, however. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 19:19, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

   Thank you. As an aside, look how this particular caption is further made unnecessarily busy by stating the names of colors in words, driving the attention of the reader away from the words illustrated. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:27, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

   The caption for the sternpost image looks perfectly OK with the highlighted headword. DonnanZ (talk) 00:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

   A different example of the use of boldface can be found here. DonnanZ (talk) 10:44, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

6. Support Per SMUconlaw and per my rationale on the talk page of this vote. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:18, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

1. Oppose both options. The status quo, with each editor deciding for himself how to format the captions he writes, and no one wasting time on mass edits switching from one format to the other, is preferable. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 00:08, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

   Aɴɢʀ: I understand this to mean that avoidable lack of unity AKA consistency in formatting is preferable, right? --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:06, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

   Consistency has its place, which is why we have templates, but in this case I feel that any attempt at consistency would be unnecessarily disruptive and would not bring any benefit except consistency for consistency's sake. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:20, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

   How would removal of boldface from captions in volumes be "disruptive"? What would it "disrupt"? I don't understand. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:24, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

   It would disrupt my work to have my watchlist filled with edits doing nothing constructive, but merely adding or removing boldface from captions. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:15, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

   The watchlist tool makes it possible to hide bot edits. And since many entries are affected by a variety of bot edits anyway, he who does not want to see trivial edits on their watchlist has to use that feature. Removals of boldface would add just a small fraction to the overall bot edit volume. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:26, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

2. Oppose per Angr. --WikiTiki89 15:41, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

   I'll also add that the argument for boldface is for the same reason we use boldface in usage examples. It's not to make the caption stand out, it's to make the word stand out within the caption. --WikiTiki89 19:31, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

   It is because the caption is not a usage example and the caption should be short that the word does not need to stand out there. The caption is relatively unimportant and should be unconspicuous; it is the image that is important, and is there to illustrate one of the uses of the word, which is always the page headword. The boldface and the caption should not drive the reader attention away from the image. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:01, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

   The image would not be added unless it is relevant to the headword, so highlighting the headword if it appears in the caption is IMO a good idea. And the caption can be a usage example if it's written in a foreign language. I am rather puzzled by your attitude here. DonnanZ (talk) 22:46, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

   @DonnanZ: Every piece of information on the page is relevant to the headword, not just images; that is the selection criterion for which information should be on the page. It does not follow that each occurrence of the headword should be highlighted in boldface. Indeed, we usually do not boldface occurrences of headwords in usage notes, which I like. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:45, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

3. Oppose: changing vote from abstain. DonnanZ (talk) 00:34, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
4. Oppose: changing vote from abstain. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 19:38, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
5. Oppose per Angr. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
6. Oppose. This should be treated on a case-by-case, not a one-size-fits-all basis. Generally I prefer captions without boldface, but I don't think that the status quo prevents anybody from removing boldface when they consider it an improvement, while this vote would (whether intentionally or not) let a bot convert even those where boldface is appropriate (eg at FL entries as mentioned by DonnanZ). --Droigheann (talk) 22:00, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

   Droigheann@: I do feel prevented from removing boldface when I feel it is an improvement. Since, in my view, removing boldface is an improvement in general, but I do have evidence in the mainspace that some editors think that boldface is good in general, and therefore, I would consider even manual removals of boldface to be unwise and not in keeping with the principle of consensus-based decision making. As for the other concern, I have not seen any entries where I would think boldface appropriate, foreign-language ones or otherwise. For sternpost, above I have pointed out what I think are deficiencies of the caption whose correction would make boldface unnecessary. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:13, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

   In betongrør, nothing would be lost in removing boldface, yielding "Betongrør in plural form - concrete pipes" or "Betongrør in plural form - concrete pipes, using italics. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:24, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

   Well I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree on both of these. I accept your viewpoints, but mine are the exact opposite: AFAIC, both plain and italicised Betongrør look worse than boldfaced, and this vote, if successful, would imply editors' agreement that boldface should be removed from any caption unless a particular one is discussed in Tea room or somewhere (I wouldn't even really know where) first. --Droigheann (talk) 20:52, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

   @Droigheann: Should then all non-English headwords in captions be in bold, per your preference? If not, what makes betongrør special? If yes, is it really true of you that "Generally, I prefer captions without boldface"? I don't understand. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:54, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

   There's no reason for a bold caption e.g. at rohlík, where it's the only word, what makes betongrør different is that it's an FL word used within running English text. Given that there's no point in having pictures at FL entries which only contain direct translations to English, the majority of pictures should be at English entries, so I don't understand what you don't understand.

   Incidentally I find the caption at rohlík with its capital initial but no full stop badly formatted. But that's how it was created. Should I be afraid to change it, not being the caption's author? --Droigheann (talk) 14:59, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

   I like images in non-English entries and so do apparently multiple other editors; I like what I did at klíč. The caption at rohlík is fine; captions should start in capital letter, IMHO, and do not end in period unless they are sentences. Indeed, going about changing captions like the one at rohlík without a previous discussion or consensus would be unwise since then editors would be working at cross-purposes, one group switching in one way, another group switching in another way. That is why it is ideal when a general formatting practice supported by consensus can be found so that people can feel free to be switching to that practice. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:46, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

7. Oppose Editors should decide, but maybe we should have some rough guidelines/recommendations. Currently WT:EL does not mention images at all, which looks like an oversight. – Jberkel (talk) 16:38, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

   @Jberkel: Which editors? Those who add images, upon adding the image? Or any editor? --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:52, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

   Whoever adds an image and writes that caption. It might make sense for longer captions, when the headword needs to stand out. Then again, longer captions should probably be avoided anyway (defeating the purpose of an image). Jberkel (talk) 16:55, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Oppose (vote cancelled) — Saltmarsh. 08:13, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Abstain (vote changed) - I am generally in favour of making the headword bold in captions, but I think that in short captions it may look silly. I think it should be left to the editor to decide, but as I can't vote for either of the given options I am abstaining. DonnanZ (talk) 10:26, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

@Donnanz If I understand the vote correctly, a vote in the "Oppose" section would support leaving it up to the editor on a case-by-case basis. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:43, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

This needs to be verified. It's not the impression I get when I look at the follow-up action. DonnanZ (talk) 14:54, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Really? Follow-up actions are listed for options 1 and 2, but not for the "oppose" option, so I assume that if neither option succeeds (i.e., if the oppose votes win), then the status quo (which is that many captions have bolding and many don't) will continue. What other outcome could there be if the oppose votes win? Pinging vote creator @Dan Polansky for confirmation. —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:26, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

If opposes win, there is no decision, and status quo ante remains, whatever the status quo ante is. As far as I can see, the status quo ante does not forbid editors from using boldface or avoiding boldface when adding a new image with a caption. What is more open to doubt is adding bold or removing bold while doing no other thing to an existing image caption. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:52, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

@DonnanZ: I wonder: what do you mean by up to the editor? Do you mean that any editor should feel free to add bold or remove bold as they see fit, regardless of whether they are the one who added the image or the caption? --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:04, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I really meant the editor who is adding the image and caption. I wasn't thinking about subsequent edits, but that is open to discussion. DonnanZ (talk) 20:08, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

1. Abstain It's a pretty pointless vote. --Quadcont (talk) 18:43, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

   I want to start removing boldface but only if this is supported by consensus. So I need something like this vote. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:19, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

   Removing boldface shouldn't be the purpose of the vote. DonnanZ (talk) 14:56, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

   Abstain (vote changed) This is a non-issue and this is a pointless vote. Leaving it up to the individual editors, and to the separate-language editor communities, seems best to me. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 22:03, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

   @Eirikr: As I commented under Donnanz's vote above, I think you might want to vote oppose. That is the status quo option, which would leave it up to individual editors as far as I can tell. —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:07, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

2. Abstain — Saltmarsh. 18:45, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

   @Saltmarsh Is your vote abstain or oppose? -Xbony2 (talk) 23:50, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

   Oh dear - the memory's going! "Oppose" cancelled — Saltmarsh. 05:53, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Option 1 fails, option 2 no consensus.

• Support option 1: 2
• Support option 2: 6
• Oppose: 7
• Abstain: 2

I'm pretty sure we can count votes as follows.

• Vote count for option 1: 2-7-2 (22.23%-77.77%)
• Vote count for option 2: 6-7-2 (46.15%-53.85%)

--Daniel Carrero (talk) 06:41, 8 March 2017 (UTC)