MediaWiki talk:Captions

Blank captions

It seems there is a subgroup of anons and others whose primary or only contribution is adding captions to images that don't have any. This might seem harmless enough, but it bugs me nonetheless. If humorous captions are a reward of sorts for hard-working editors, then anons who add nothing else shouldn't be taking away the fodder for that reward.

To that end, I'd propose to all image-adding editors that if you have nothing "funny" to say, then say something informative. An informative caption doesn't have to be "this picture is a picture that is of Megatron"; it can state that this is "The box art painting of Megatron from his original 1984 Generation 1 toy". Maybe it's a little vengeful of me, but I'd rather see that as a placeholder till a regular contributor adds something genuinely worthwhile, instead of whatever some random anon thinks up in five seconds because they're convinced that this gaping void must be filled. -- Repowers 18:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm down with that. --M_Sipher 20:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Captions without images

In line with captions being a "reward" of sorts, I think whoever went to the trouble to upload an image get first crack at the caption. There are a couple of captions despite not having images yet, which in my opinion is just not cricket. Thoughts? -- Magnus Maximus 02:35, 4 November 2008 (EST)

I think that goes without saying, whomever uploads the image gets first go to caption it (unless their caption is deemed to be stupid or offensive or some other reason). --FFN 15:33, 14 March 2009 (EDT)

I don't get this

This "rule" seems pretty pointless to me. It's fun to add amusing captions - so what if you haven't anything "serious" already? Can anyone explain this rule better than on this project page? To be honest, it seems petty - but I'm willing to be proved wrong. --Grimlockius Prime 05:20, 14 March 2009 (EDT)

Because the main point of this wiki isn't to crack jokes, the main point of this wiki is to provide information about Transformers. People who are contributing useful information use the image captions and similar methods as a perk/bonus to make their work fun to edit and read, not as an end in and of itself.

So if you change a caption, you're ruining someone else's "reward" for adding information, and if you're doing nothing but adding jokes, than you're not contributing anything worthwhile that furthers the wiki's actual purpose. Humor is secondary. --Jeysie 05:57, 14 March 2009 (EDT)

Thanks for the reply. I appreciate that someone changing another's caption is infringing on a "perk", but I don't think this is a perk. The perk is getting your text on the wiki and providing quality information. And secondly, if you can provide a funnier joke (and so far I can't), then why not? Everyone benefits. --Grimlockius Prime 14:22, 14 March 2009 (EDT)

Since theoretically anybody can get their writing on the wiki (and assuming it's quality, it stays there), that's not really a perk. I see it as work. --FFN 15:32, 14 March 2009 (EDT)