ESB:Proposals/Moving nested image tabbers currently inside infoboxes/voting

Open Proposal The following is an ongoing proposal. Please feel free to voice your opinion, but be sure to follow the rules. How proposals work Concerns stage Someone brings up a topic for a proposal. The community discusses that topic. Voting stage The proposal is brought to a vote, taking into account any changes discussed by the community. The community votes. You can use any of the following prior to your comments to show your opinion. {{Support}} • {{Neutral}} • {{Oppose}} • {{Change}} • {{Comment}} • {{Reply}} • {{Question}} Neutral votes do not count in determining the outcome percentage.

Instructions

This page is the voting stage of this discussion: "Moving nested image tabbers currently inside infoboxes."

With all concerns from the concern stage of this discussion having been resolved and taken into account, the proposal located in the "Proposal" section above has been created and moved to voting. To join the voting, you simply use buttons located in the "Voting" section of this page and fill the resulting page.

Have a happy voting!

Proposal

Significant discussion has already taken place in the thread "ESB and the Mobile Web".

ESB has a sizable mobile audience, and they need to be able to see all of your great content accessibly. For our purposes, that means the entire article must display reasonably and readably in Mercury, our mobile skin. For some of your articles, that's not happening.

This screenshot is too big to embed, but represents the 11MB download to get to the bottom of the Eugene H. Krabs page. It has 366 images, and the screenshot itself still doesn't reach the bottom. If these images remain inside the infoboxes, they must be inside <gallery> tags, as that volume of tabbers (and nested tabbers) are not and will not be supported in Mercury.

Under this proposal the nested tabbers of | design = that are currently in some infoboxes would be moved to the /gallery inside a searchable and captioned <gallery>.

We appreciate the hard work that has gone into these, which is why we'd like to see these moved and reorganized rather than deleted. We hope that you can produce an organization scheme (in a single layer) that really surfaces these images well, wherever they are moved to.

The proposed process is:

• Use a bot to extract the tabber content from the |design= value of the character templates. (E.g. {{Character/SpongeBob SquarePants}}) This would be done for all such character templates that employ nested tabbers.
• Process that tab set, via regex, into a <gallery> compliant block, with labels.
• Place the contents into the related gallery subpage. (E.g. SpongeBob SquarePants (character)/gallery)
• Remove the extensive tabber sets from | design =.
• Leave behind 1-5 images in a single-layer gallery in the | image = value of the character template.

Now, this will go a lot more smoothly if volunteers will help with the transition, which can be coordinated by a number of different ways. One is to invite those that wish to help with the migration into a special Slack server, where we can quickly distribute the input and output code blocks. This is a good opportunity for individual users to add to their edit count, rather than having me (or my bot) do all of it. We have (if we only do the character templates), over a thousand of these articles / templates to process, but it's entirely possible that not all of them are so complex; those that only have a couple of images or no nested tabbers can go very quickly. Otherwise, with a handful of volunteers working on this for a couple hours per day, we could get it done in a day or two.

This is a vote on the WAY the transition will take place (as outlined above) rather than whether it will happen or not

--Spongebob456 ^talk 16:19, September 6, 2017 (UTC)

Voting

Choose your input: Support • Neutral • Oppose • Comment

• Support - --Spongebob456 ^talk 16:22, September 6, 2017 (UTC)

• Extremely Strong Support -  Nickmick ^{(M•C•E•B)}   

• Extremely Strong Oppose - Even though I have made my points as to why I am against this clear in other parts of this wiki, I will summerize them here in case some people didn't see them.

1. This plan is incomplete. While I don't know if FishTank expects us to finish this plan, I do know that 456 does.
2. This plan requires the assistance of members of this community, which is a huge flaw to me. While other projects are the same, it is not a requirement outlined in the proposal or at least it is not done in a way that seems like we are being forced to work on this and that the proposer will have very little to do with the project.
3. This is not a problem that the wiki is responsible for as it is the Mercury skin (the skin used on mobile) that is breaking the infobox, not the infobox itself. This is known because it works on the Oasis skin (the skin used on desktop).
4. All the hard work will be lost. Sure, it technically won't be, but the formatting will be lost.
5. I prefer the tabbers over a gallery that hasn't even been completed in the plan. Seriously, this proposal is for a temporary solution to a problem that the wiki is not even causing.
6. Why fix something that isn't broken?

If anyone has the intention to respond to this. Please go to the concern stage and go to my post. Here, you will find 456's responses. I am aware of this information, so there is no reason to reitorate it.  120d  Talk  Contribs  16:32, September 6, 2017 (UTC) 

• Oppose - Per 120d.  trevorontario  w  c  clickme 
• Comment - I'm not voting, of course; but unless you have a better plan this is the one that will be acted upon. – FishTank (wall) 16:47, September 6, 2017 (UTC)
  • Are you saying that this proposal is useless and that you will enact this regardless of what the community thinks?  120d  Talk  Contribs  17:02, September 6, 2017 (UTC) 
    • I'm saying this is a proposal for method. The end result (a movement of content) will be enacted by this method unless an alternative is presented. — FishTank (wall) 17:24, September 6, 2017 (UTC)
      • If you were looking for solutions to this non-problem, then you need to make a proposal in that format. The format that you used was to see if people wanted this change. Personally, I am fine with this format as it might give you an idea of if people really want you to interfere with the wiki or not. I recommend waiting for this proposal to end. If you feel that you still want to force us to have this change, but want solutions to the non-problem, then I recommend making a proposal in that format. Proposals like that are more open. The concern stage is not used for concerns, but instead ideas. Although, you could also get ideas from a thread. I should also mention that an alternative has been presented, but you seem to be persistant on not taking that. (The alternative is you leaving us alone and bug the Mercury skin programmers about the problem or not bug them. I don't care.)  120d  Talk  Contribs  17:37, September 6, 2017 (UTC) 
        • OK FishTank, look, even I who supports this change to hell, and always talks about "let's not be worse by the Mercury programmers", think that some of the staff SHOULD say one day to one of the Mercury programmes "Hey, you know, why not trying something better than this generic thing that supports almost nothing in terms of coding?".  Nickmick ^{(M•C•E•B)}   
          • It intentionally "supports almost nothing in terms of coding". That's by design, not a flaw. And it's not likely to change significantly. — FishTank (wall) 18:21, September 6, 2017 (UTC)
        • Users could have offered alternative arrangements during the Concerns stage but did not. That's the whole point of the concerns stage is to offer concerns/ideas and find compromises. Nobody did that so now we're voting on this method. --Spongebob456 ^talk 17:57, September 6, 2017 (UTC)
          • It was not clear that this was the purpose of this proposal. It was never indicated that the proposal was intended to find solutions. Please don't make excuses, especially for the actions of others.  120d  Talk  Contribs  18:10, September 6, 2017 (UTC) 
• Neutral -  DanzxvFan8275 (M•C•U•E)  16:52, September 6, 2017 (UTC) 

• Support - — AMK152 (Wall • Contrib) 18:22, September 6, 2017 (UTC)

• ESB - rubbish. --Statuens in patre dextra. (Cans48) 19:24, September 6, 2017 (UTC)