Bureaucrats, content-moderator, emailconfirmed, Administrators (Semantic MediaWiki), Curators (Semantic MediaWiki), Administrators, threadmoderator
85,404
edits
User talk:NileQT87: Difference between revisions
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
no edit summary
OttselSpy25 (talk | contribs) (→Images: new section) |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 74: | Line 74: | ||
Oh, and when leaving a message on a talk page, it is a good idea to put your message ''at the bottom'' so that the user you talk to doesn't have to go on a wild goose chase to find your message. Also, I don't understand why you put it under Czech's message about cropping images better and colour correction. Did you feel like that that was similar to your message? [[User:OttselSpy25|OS25]] ([[User Talk:OttselSpy25|talk to me, baby.]]) 03:59, March 8, 2012 (UTC) | Oh, and when leaving a message on a talk page, it is a good idea to put your message ''at the bottom'' so that the user you talk to doesn't have to go on a wild goose chase to find your message. Also, I don't understand why you put it under Czech's message about cropping images better and colour correction. Did you feel like that that was similar to your message? [[User:OttselSpy25|OS25]] ([[User Talk:OttselSpy25|talk to me, baby.]]) 03:59, March 8, 2012 (UTC) | ||
== Promotinoal images and missing episodes == | |||
You're talking about a lot of different policies here, so I'll try to pick out everything I see. | |||
Let me start with two philosophies of administration. | |||
First of all, I direct you to [[T:IUP ADMIN]]. This rule simply states that the existence of things which break a rule do not mean that the rule itself isn't applicable. It only means that something has escaped our notice. If [[:file:10pic.jpg]] is indeed a promo shot, then it should be removed. But on the face of it, it doesn't ''look'' like a promo, so no one's been encouraged to compare it against the actual frames of ''The End of Time''. Until now. So, thanks for the heads up. | |||
Second, any proposals to change or create policy have to be specific and actionable. Just saying "this rule needs to mellow out" isn't quite clear enough. You have to propose something that all admin can understand and act upon equally. "No promotional images" has wide support, because it's '''completely''' understandable. "No promotional images, except for those NileQT87 thinks are important and in-character from missing episodes" is, well, '''damned vague'''. | |||
Now, onto the specifics. | |||
===Promo shots=== | |||
The problem with allowing promotional pictures, '''especially''' from missing episodes, is that people will think those images actually are in the episdode. And we don't want to give that false impression. With missing episodes, this is an especial concern, because we could easily give the impression that something exists, when it actually doesn't. Publicity shots in and of themselves '''are''' allowed on the wiki, but they have to be used in a very careful way. They can only be used on out-of-universe pages, or in behind the scenes sections. A correct example of their use in BTS sections can be found at [[Varga plant]]. | |||
They ''can'' also be used on story pages, but they have to be used in a particular way. They can't be in the infobox, synopsis or plot section. They have to be placed somewhere lower, usually in the "notes" section, where you can ''clearly'' label them "publicity shots". And no, not a ''gallery'' of them, cause this violates [[T:GAL]]. If there's something that is particularly noteworthy about the story, I could see putting in a publicity shot in the notes section as long as you clearly labelled it a publicity shot. This has been done at ''[[Galaxy 4 (TV story)|Galaxy 4]]'', for instance. | |||
In other words, the key to using publicity images are: | |||
*'''Be transparent'''. Make sure the file page and the article page on which its used '''clearly''' note it as a publicity shot. | |||
*'''No infoboxes or in-universe sections'''. Promo shots can never be used as the primary illustration for anything. They have to be, to use a newspaper term, well "below the fold". Like all images, publicity images are still beholden to [[T:GAL RULES]]. | |||
*'''Use sparingly.''' The above two restrictions are ''not'' an excuse to create a gallery in a behind the scenes section. Use only when the picture actually shows us something ''important'' that cannot be had through an in-universe pic. | |||
*'''Know the source.''' You must be careful with publicity images to ensure that they ''are'' publicity images. There is a distinction between a picture taken on set by the BBC for publicity purposes, and something taken on set by a private individual for personal purposes. The first type we can use; the second we can't. For instance, people have taken some really high quality shots of ''Doctor Who'' location filming in the current era. We can't use ''any'' of that, because it's all copyright whoever took it, and there's no fair use rationale for using it. | |||
=== Clarity of thumbnails === | |||
The thing that's important, but hard, to remember is that most people do not see the wiki as we do. We're editors. We're constantly zooming out pictures. We're used to how those pictures look in full size in Photoshop, because we're the ones who uploaded them. | |||
But the average person using the site doesn't zoom the pictures, either out of lack of will, or — since about 20% of Wikia traffic is actually from phones these days — because they simply can't. So we do have to '''primarily''' consider the pictures '''as they look at thumbnail level'''. | |||
I'm not saying you ''can't'' get a two-shot — or at a push a three shot — but it's gotta be super, super clear. If you're talking about that four shot from ''The Two Doctors'' that I recently removed from [[Jamie McCrimmon]], it was in no way clear at thumbnail level. It ''required'' zooming out to make any sense of it. There are plenty of closeups of Peri/Jamie or Six/Jamie in that serial to choose from which will demonstrate the visual point you're trying to make, but do so in a much bolder way at thumbnail level. You don't need a four-shot, when a tight two-shot is available and will do the job better. {{user:CzechOut/Sig}} <span style="{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}">13:36: Mon 23 Apr 2012 </span> | |||
