228,839
edits
Forum:Temporary forums/Overhauling image policies: Difference between revisions
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
Forum:Temporary forums/Overhauling image policies (view source)
Revision as of 05:02, 12 May 2023
, 12 May 2023SV7 moved page Tardis:Forum:Temporary forums/Archive/Overhauling image policies to Forum:Temporary forums/Overhauling image policies: Bot: Moved page
Bongolium500 (talk | contribs) |
m (SV7 moved page Tardis:Forum:Temporary forums/Archive/Overhauling image policies to Forum:Temporary forums/Overhauling image policies: Bot: Moved page) |
||
| (48 intermediate revisions by 13 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{retitle|{{SUBPAGENAME}}}}[[Category:Temporary forums]] | {{retitle|{{SUBPAGENAME}}}} | ||
{{archive}}[[Category:Policy changers]][[Category:Temporary forums archives]] | |||
== Opening post == | == Opening post == | ||
<gallery position=center > | <gallery position=center > | ||
| Line 219: | Line 220: | ||
:: I realise that my message was a little unclear in that regard. I only support the use and inclusion of production and promotional pictures (and any other picture that has some form of official capacity and is directly connected to a work we cover). I do not support the use of real world images where they are disconected from a work we cover (apart from, perhaps, in behind the scenes sections). If you want general images for that, you can go to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons. [[User:Bongolium500|<span title="aka Bongolium500">Bongo50</span>]] [[User talk:Bongolium500|<span title="talk to me">☎</span>]] 21:42, 24 February 2023 (UTC) | :: I realise that my message was a little unclear in that regard. I only support the use and inclusion of production and promotional pictures (and any other picture that has some form of official capacity and is directly connected to a work we cover). I do not support the use of real world images where they are disconected from a work we cover (apart from, perhaps, in behind the scenes sections). If you want general images for that, you can go to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons. [[User:Bongolium500|<span title="aka Bongolium500">Bongo50</span>]] [[User talk:Bongolium500|<span title="talk to me">☎</span>]] 21:42, 24 February 2023 (UTC) | ||
:::I also was only intending to refer to in-universe concepts, not real world ones. I was interpreting "And we shouldn’t shun away non-in-universe images," to refer to things like promotional shoots. [[User:Schreibenheimer|Schreibenheimer]] [[User talk:Schreibenheimer|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 01:25, 25 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
::::Najawin, please don’t take my messages so literal. 😂 At no point did I say take any picture you can find anywhere on the web. When I said “of any kind” I meant any picture of any kind related in any way to said subject. Within the ''Doctor Who'' franchise. [[User:Danniesen|Danniesen]] [[User talk:Danniesen|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 02:28, 25 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
I agree with the proposal made by [[User:OttselSpy25|OS25]][[User Talk:OttselSpy25|🤙☎️]] regarding 1960s stories with barely any surviving material. The example of the pic from "The Massacre" (Hartnell as Dr Who, Purves as Steven) in the tavern is representative of a scene from the serial and would work well. It's also a widely 'known' promo pic outside of this Wiki, and I think that's another reason why we should make some allowances. (What I would be against, however, is using imagery that strays too far - ie. just a publicity shot of Hartnell. The pic of Hartnell and Purves is arguably in-character, taken on one of the serial's sets, etc. so should be eligible for use in place of what would ordinarily be used if the serial existed. I would also say 'no' to any photoshopped photos, or mock-ups eg. a pic from the UCLAN recreation of 'Mission to the Unknown'.) [[User:FractalDoctor|Fractal Doctor]] [[User talk:FractalDoctor|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 19:14, 25 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
:Just relaying Epsilon's request that this discussion be kept open until after his block ends. In the old days of the forums discussions would go on for months, and with the switch to 3 week discussion periods, it's entirely possible to have a thread take place in span of what's ''generally'' the minimum block for a user. He's particularly interested in this topic and would like to offer his input. | |||
:I don't think this request is unreasonable, but, then again, I think both the 3 week period is too short, and the 1 month usual minimum is too long. [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 22:35, 5 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
::I would support a one-week extension so that Epsilon can participate. On another note, while the subject of tabbed galleries is under discussion, can we '''please''' remove the wikilinks to incarnation pages in tabbed galleries for Time Lord pages? It is quite literally impossible to switch between images on [[the Doctor]] or [[the Master]] on my Kindle currently because every time I tap on a different incarnation name it sends me to the ''page'' for that incarnation, which is extremely unhelpful. [[User:Pluto2|Pluto2]][[User talk:Pluto2|<span title="talk to me">☎</span>]] 22:32, 8 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
::: I'd say a week is a bit long, I'd say the thread could be extended until the day he returns. But yes, I think removing tab links is a reasonable suggestion [[User:OttselSpy25|OS25]][[User Talk:OttselSpy25|🤙☎️]] 01:52, 9 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
I wholeheartedly support everything in the original post. This wiki has a lot more potential in the images department and we are limiting it. The requirements on filesize and cropping are also laughable to say the ''least''. I think many of us can also agree that finding, compressing, and choosing images to fit these requirements has caused a lot of unnecessary headache. | |||
I also think promotional images should be allowed where they depict a character, thing or situation in-universe, which is usually the case, because that's usually what they're meant to do. For an example, look at Wikipedia's pages for {{w|Ace (Doctor Who)}} and {{W|Vislor Turlough}}, and then look at our [[Ace]] and [[Vislor Turlough]]. Which do a better job at depicting the character in an informational way? I don't see how ours do at all. They prioritize a close crop and looking left more than actually being useful. Even if we didn't use their promo photos there must be literally hundreds of better possible images just from the TV show. And that's not to say we shouldn't use them either- story images are useful in their own right for depicting a character in action, so it really depends on the character and the available images. After all, '''the purpose of images on a wiki is to best illustrate the subject of the article to the reader.''' Using images that do that ''based on the article'' should eliminate the need to have requirements about what it must look like or depict. Plus, galleries would let us do that even more, without relegating unchosen but still good infobox images to never be used, and they would serve as a useful resource and record as well. This website is meant to be a resource on ''Doctor Who''... | |||
Further on the topic of promo images, we already use images from book and audio covers to depict in-universe things. I think this is fine (in fact often necessary) to depict what a character, species, etc looks like, but something that should be taken with a grain of salt is using these to depict in-universe events. For example, I recently noticed [[Kotturuh crisis]] using several images, including in the infobox, of audio covers to depict this event. It's fine to say these images depict the Tenth Doctor during the crisis, or what Brian the Ood looks like, but I think it's odd to use these as if this is what it actually looked like and cite it to the story. I don't know if we should go so far as to disallow this, but I would encourage clarification like the caption saying "Depiction of the Doctors and Daleks during the crisis" rather than just "The Doctors and Daleks during the crisis." (Actually on that note, captions for infobox images are woefully underutilised. Because this conversation reminded me, I added one to [[Time (mythology)]], but consider what that would be like without it to someone who hasn't seen ''[[The Vanquishers (TV story)|The Vanquishers]]''. [[User:Chubby Potato|Chubby Potato]] [[User talk:Chubby Potato|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 04:56, 10 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
: I mostly agree, particularly with regards to cropping. I studied graphic design, so tend to be a bit of a perfectionist about how I crop my images. I can't tell you the amount of images I've uploaded to character pages - zoomed in just enough so that they fit policy - only to have them be re-cropped so that they just show the persons eyes. I think they should obviously focus on the character's head, rather than be too zoomed out, but not zoomed in to the point that everybody looks like [[Cassandra O'Brien.Δ17]]. However, I do like the facing left rule; it just makes it look better if images are facing towards the text, especially when it come to character profile pictures. I do, however, think that there are times when that isn't needed, and the way images are cropped/presented should always depend on the subject. Perhaps the facing left rule should just be a guideline. [[User:66 Seconds|66 Seconds]] [[User talk:66 Seconds|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 13:03, 12 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
:: I would agree with the facing left images. And I actually prefer that characters look toward the text. However, I would not have it be a strict rule. I would say the policy should be changed to say something like "left-looking is preferred if there is a good image, but should not a strict rule if not”. [[User:Danniesen|Danniesen]] [[User talk:Danniesen|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 15:21, 12 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
::: I agree the 'left facing profile' for photos should be more of a guideline than a rule. If no good photos exist, only then should other options be put on the table. [[User:FractalDoctor|Fractal Doctor]] [[User talk:FractalDoctor|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 15:34, 12 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
::::The funny thing is that having the image be left-facing already ''is'' just a guideline, and not a rule. However it's been taken as so important (especially because of how it's formatted similar to an actual rule in the policy) that images which look right have been mostly ignored because of it, where among candidates for an image one is dismissed because of it despite whatever other redeeming aspects it may have. Honestly I think there are some cases where a bad left-facing image has been chosen over a good right-facing one. I recall a discussion facetiously referring to "the cardinal sin of not looking left", but that we reached a point where that joke had to be made says something to me. I think left-looking is good, but even as just a guideline it is taken a bit too seriously. To kind of reiterate my point, it should be part of a more holistic view— where we don't say "no, we can't use that image because it doesn't face left", but rather "this image doesn't face left so it's not ''perfect'', but let's see about the other things." [[User:Chubby Potato|Chubby Potato]] [[User talk:Chubby Potato|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 00:49, 13 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
==== Portrait/square-sized images? ==== | |||
I agree with pretty much everything that's suggested here. Insisting on these "extreme close up" images, or limiting the file size in this extreme manner, strikes me as rather arbitrary. On ''Stranger Things Wiki'', we generally use images with greater height than width, to create a portrait-like effect, while showing something like 25 to 70% of the character's clothing, figure, posture, body, etc. Here are some examples: [https://strangerthings.fandom.com/wiki/Eleven Eleven], [https://strangerthings.fandom.com/wiki/Martin_Brenner Brenner], [https://strangerthings.fandom.com/wiki/Vecna Vecna]. | |||
I will say, that at their best, the horizontal close-ups can create an interesting aesthetic all of their own (but only when the images are of good quality). Infobox size also ought to be discussed/decided upon - using portrait-style images in turn make the infoboxes much, much larger; they make a greater visual impact. Whether that would be a welcome or unwanted change, that'd be up for the community to decide. [[User:TheGreatGabester|TheGreatGabester]] [[User talk:TheGreatGabester|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 20:10, 12 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
: Interesting points raised about using taller/more portrait-leaning images by [[User:TheGreatGabester|TheGreatGabester]] . A lot of infoboxes on this Wiki are incredibly detailed and therefore pretty tall/long already, so not sure what people would make of it... but I wouldn't be against it, especially if it allowed us to (a) have a more visual impact and (b) showcase a character's main look/costume too. In Doctor Who, whilst it's often the case that regular characters change their clothing, this doesn't always happen and there are lots of characters with iconic/definitive looks, which could be showcased if we allowed for taller image sizes. [[User:FractalDoctor|Fractal Doctor]] [[User talk:FractalDoctor|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 21:08, 12 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
: On Russian ''Doctor Who Wiki'' we also use portrait-like images whenever possible, and promotional ones too, because we feel they better represent the characters - they were created '''exactly for this purpose'''. For real world people portrait-like images are also the norm, here's some examples: [https://tardis.fandom.com/ru/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B2%D1%8B%D0%B9_%D0%94%D0%BE%D0%BA%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80 First Doctor], [https://tardis.fandom.com/ru/wiki/%D0%92%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%BE%D1%80_%D0%A2%D1%83%D1%80%D0%BB%D0%BE%D1%83 Turlough], [https://tardis.fandom.com/ru/wiki/%D0%94%D0%B6%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D0%9A%D0%BE%D1%83%D0%BB%D0%BC%D0%B0%D0%BD Jenna Coleman], [https://tardis.fandom.com/ru/wiki/%D0%94%D0%B6%D0%BE%D0%BD_%D0%9A%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%B7 John Cleese]. This sort of thing would be most welcome on this Wiki, making it more accessible. [[User:Dmitriy Volfson|Dmitriy Volfson]] [[User talk:Dmitriy Volfson|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 07:00, 13 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
::Maybe a good middle ground would be allowing the use of square images? Those wouldn't look so out of place, but making a shift to full-on portraits might be too much, as far as this wiki is concerned. I don't think using promotional images are the way to go, personally, better to keep it in-universe when possible. [[User:TheGreatGabester|TheGreatGabester]] [[User talk:TheGreatGabester|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 09:52, 13 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::As much as I like the portrait images, I think we would struggle to maintain that style due to the type of show that ''Doctor Who'' is. ''Stranger Things'' has a regular cast across multiple episodes, hence most characters will usually have a promotional image or a screengrab of reasonable quality. ''Doctor Who'' changes its cast episode-by-episode, and has been running since 1963, so a lot of characters won't have promotional images; many are also on screen for too little time to obtain a decent screengrab of the size/quality that we would need. Plus we also have the comics/audios/games to consider. Having portrait images on some pages and landscape images on others might look a little chaotic. With this in mind, I would be against using both portrait and promotional images (unless in such cases where promo images are the only images available). However, as [[User:TheGreatGabester|TheGreatGabester]] says, square images might be a good way to go. [[User:66 Seconds|66 Seconds]] [[User talk:66 Seconds|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 11:34, 13 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::: Another benefit that would come with shifting to square images: it’s much simpler to remember. I can’t remember if there’s a rule, about there being a preferred aspect ratio, or anything - that’s partly on me, to be fair - but if you shift the default to square, that’s much simpler to communicate. ''Everyone'' knows what square means. [[User:TheGreatGabester|TheGreatGabester]] [[User talk:TheGreatGabester|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 13:39, 13 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
::::: Whilst I'd love portrait-style images, I hear the points raised above and I agree with them. I would be very much in favour of squared-shaped/sized photos. Easy for everyone to remember and make, and it would allow for some more detail to be glimpsed (ie. costume/headwear/etc) [[User:FractalDoctor|Fractal Doctor]] [[User talk:FractalDoctor|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 15:54, 13 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::::: A shift to 4:3 images, or "square images", is certainly something one of the core changes I would like to see, along with an understanding that a character's outfit and hair can be more important than just their face. [[User:OttselSpy25|OS25]][[User Talk:OttselSpy25|🤙☎️]] 06:40, 14 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
::::::: For anyone potentially doubting the use/size of square images, it's worth noting we use them on Big Finish stories pages for their respective square covers. It takes up a little more room, but most (if not all) pages are filled enough for this not to have any negative impact. In fact, arguably bigger pictures - and square ones - may have more impact. I hope this gets implemented. [[User:FractalDoctor|Fractal Doctor]] [[User talk:FractalDoctor|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 11:19, 14 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
Another thing I like about square images: they work pretty well as icons (there's a reason why profile pictures are usually square). So that's a nice bonus - if there's an in-flux of square images, those same images can also be re-used in templates, tables, family trees, etc - any kind of visual overview, basically, and it'll probably look good. [[User:TheGreatGabester|TheGreatGabester]] [[User talk:TheGreatGabester|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 14:04, 14 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
: I agree with the above. I might be going a little off topic here, but thinking about promotional images, what are peoples thoughts on the use of images like logos and flags? | |||
:As stated above, I'm against the wider use of promotional images, except in such cases where promo images are the only images available. I would argue that this is the case with regards to logos. Images we have of logos on the wiki are poor quality screengrabs. I would personally like it if we could use promotional images for the logos of organisations such as [[UNIT]] and [[Cybus Industries]], along with companies such as [[Magpie Electricals]]. Notice how much better the page for the [[Torchwood Institute]] looks because it uses an image of a Big Finish cover. | |||
:With regards to flags, I can see that on ''Stranger Things Wiki'' you have flags on pages such as [https://strangerthings.fandom.com/wiki/United_States_of_America United States of America] and [https://strangerthings.fandom.com/wiki/Soviet_Union Soviet Union]. However, on ''Doctor Who Wiki'' we don't have a united approach to dealing with countries, making everything appear a bit disjointed. [[United States of America]] uses a screengrab of a flag, while [[United Kingdom]] shows the country from space and [[Norway]] just shows a screengrab of a forest. I personally think that if a flag is shown in narrative, we should be able to use a high-quality image of that flag - similar to ''Stranger Things Wiki''. Not sure if this would break rules with regards to [[T:NO RW]]. [[User:66 Seconds|66 Seconds]] [[User talk:66 Seconds|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 14:47, 14 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
::Well, on ST Wiki, we have looser rules surrounding images + keeping everything strictly in-universe. I personally thought: if a flag appears blowing in the wind in an episode, it's about 2% less canonical to just use the official graphic for the infobox. That said, Tardis Wiki's approach is valid too, it's really just a matter of preference. But this wiki's country articles are definitely a bit inconsistent, in terms of images. I think the Wikipedia route is the best way to go: put a flag ''and'' an aerial image/map. [[User:TheGreatGabester|TheGreatGabester]] [[User talk:TheGreatGabester|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 14:56, 14 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
I want [[User:Epsilon the Eternal|Epsilon the Eternal]] to say some final comments on this as he was the one who originally had an opening post written, which was disrupted by a 1 month block. [[User:Danniesen|Danniesen]] [[User talk:Danniesen|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 19:53, 14 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
:I agree with basically everything said here (would like to be more specific but can't read the whole thread). [[User:Cousin Ettolrhc|Cousin Ettolrhc]] [[User talk:Cousin Ettolrhc|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 19:58, 14 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
:: Okay, my thoughts on this. (I do have considerable interest in getting this policy changed, so thank you all for waiting!) A lot of this is just me supporting other people's proposals but I do have many of my own thoughts sprinkled in. | |||
# I agree that [[T:GTI]] and [[T:IUP]] should be merged, it is completely unintuitive to have two policies for the same thing. | |||
# I wasn't even aware that 4:3 aspect ratios were to be avoided! I have uploaded many images in this aspect ratio, and I feel that we should allow 4:3 aspect ratios interchangably with 16:9. Unless if it is closely cropped in on a particular item in frame or some other particularily good reason, I feel we should err on the side of using the natural aspect ratio of the source. | |||
# I am all for slackening the rules on the position of eyes (even though it was only meant to be a guideline in the first place!) and also codifying that to be cropped in on the face does not mean you crop out the forehead and chin, which are parts of the face. I have seen this done in the past and it was very extreme. | |||
# The rule of facing left, while nice for consistency, is too harshly applied. We should be able to determine the best possible image with criteria other than "must be facing left, must be looking left" haha. | |||
# I genuinely don't get why comic colourisations are disallowed. I originally thought the policy was referring to ''fan colourisations''! I completely support allowing colourisations. | |||
# As for OOU infobox images, I feel we should use the image as it originally came. I'd rather not start cropping those images too! So if some are square, some are widescreen, andd some are portrait... we should use them all the same! | |||
# With "one image per paragraph", I agree with the change, but only if the paragraph's length exceeds the length of the image (unless if there isn't another image directly underneath). This can easily be tested through previewing the changes to the page, so I feel this limitation should be easy to apply and uphold. | |||
# Promo images are a toughy. I feel the issue is rather thorny to completely change here without first dissecting the pros and cons, so perhaps another thread may be best. I also do not feel like this constitutes a [[T:NO RW]] breach, especially as there is very little difference between a Big Finish trailer and interior artwork from a Big Finish CD. Also, promo images are already allowed in many cases as the non-narrative fiction thread made those with titles fair game. However, I feel we should at least make a couple of small changes:<br>'''One''': I think we should allow the comic previews and Big Finish trailer visuals to be used so long as they're merged into the relevant source's page, and cited as <tt><nowiki>[[COMIC]]: ''[[Seasons of Fear (audio story)|Seasons of Fear]]''</nowiki></tt> and/or <tt><nowiki>[[COMIC]]: ''[[Seasons of Fear (comic story)|Seasons of Fear]]''</nowiki></tt> (the latter as a redirect to the audio story). I'm sure that while the greater scope of promo images will need further discussion, allowing "promo images" from these sources in the exact same way we do interior artwork and covers should be uncontroversial. (A further point is the particular portrayal of [[Erimem]] being a dark skinned Egyptian in the DWM comics which is a highly important part of her character despite [[Caroline Morris|her actor]] being very British.)<br>'''Two''': promo images for stories with no existing visuals should definitely be allowed. It feels weird to have a television story page without any images! | |||
# Tabbed galleries for non-multiple-incarnation characters should definitely be allowed; I've always wanted to see an image of [[Beverley Cressman]]'s version of [[Kate Stewart]] in the infobox! (So in short I feel that differing actors may be enough grounds for a tabbed gallery, but I'm sure others would disagree.) We should also make it clear — considering the feedback I've heard from mobile app users — to disallow links in the tabbed gallery as it makes using them impossible as the app thinks you've clicked the link to a given page instead. These, as pointed out by @[[user:Fractal Doctor|Fractal Doctor]] would also be very helpful with real world source pages that have multiple covers. | |||
# With galleries, I feel in some cases keeping them on the main page will be best for visual content, ''a la'' the example on Memory Alpha. I can see larger galleries being better suited to <nowiki>[[/Gallery]]</nowiki> subpages though. | |||
# The file size limit should definitely be the same as Fandom's; it makes little sense not to make the most of the features Fandom gives us! Furtermore, it should be noted that [[T:ICC]] says "''most are completely fine at 20-40kb.''" which is absolutely not fine. It may have been in 2005, but not now, nearly ''twenty years later''! These are the types of images I see on old [[Doctor Who tie-websites|''Doctor Who'' tie-in websites]] and think to myself how archaic the small images are. | |||
# I personally feel that .pngs, .jpgs, .webps, and .svgs should all be allowed. .pngs and .jpgs should be allowed interchangably, .webps are the same filetype as what Fandom converts all images to anyway (so it can be a hassle when you download an image from one Wiki as a .webp but have to convert it when you come to upload to Tardis) and .svgs should be allowed primarily for logos. It's what Wikimedia often uses!<br>As @[[user:guyus24|guyus24]] pointed out, Fandom does convert images from their original file types to .webps and also changes their aspect ratios, so not having so many hard rules on things like aspect ratios wouldn't harm anything. Wanna make sure that this explanation is known by the admin closing the thread as I feel it is important to understand these things from a technical perspective too. | |||
# I agree with @[[User:Najawin|Najawin]] we should expand our list of licenses. A lot is missing! (Some could do with updates as well, some even still call Fandom "Wikia".) | |||
# Mirroring my support of 4:3 images, I also feel like portrait images in infoboxes should be allowed. A lot of the time they show important details such as a character's clothing which is a major part of character design. I also do not feel like this would impact consistency, as since we have validated a lot of non-narrative books now, I'm sure there is at least one with good character portraits that we can use for at least every television Doctor, companion, and major supporting characters. The Russian Wiki pulls this off ''really well'', even if they primarily utilise photographic images. | |||
# I would also like to see some mention of image composition on the revised policy pages, mentioning things like {{w|rule of three}}, as it can be a good guide. | |||
# As for images for infoboxes for countries, why don't we use both the flag and a picture of the country, as suggested earlier, but placed into a tabbed gallery? Or is that what everyone intended anyway? | |||
:: I feel, in the wake of this massive change to policy, the previous restrictions on when infobox image discussions for characters such as [[Bernice Summerfield]] should be reset and new discussions to be created, as a lot of previously disallowed images will likely be completely acceptable. I hope my post hasn't been too long! {{User:Epsilon the Eternal/signature}} 21:04, 14 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
== Conclusion == | |||
<div class="tech"> | |||
Alright, let's do this. There is clear consensus that we need to massively modernise and overhaul our image policies; I don't think the following conclusions will be surprising to anyone who's read through this thread, but I'll still restate each and every change for clarity | |||
=== On permitted image uploads === | |||
* Per near-unanimous consensus, '''the 100kb file size limit is no more.''' We should no longer have a hard limit distinct from FANDOM's built-in limit of 10MB (few images really need to be more than, say, 5MB, but the full limit may sometimes be useful to reproduce a very large image, such as a wallpaper, without data loss). | |||
* '''PNG and JPG should both be allowed for the majority of images''' (with a bias towards JPGs for screenshot, but PNGs shouldn't be deleted on sight if they do arise). Other bespoke file-tipes like SVG can be used for specific types of non-standard images like logos. '''WEBP shouldn't be used, though.''' It's a pain to work with, and since FANDOM converts anyway, there's no benefit in saddling ourselves with the thing at the uploading level. | |||
* '''4:3 and 16:9 aspect ratios, and anything in-between, should be freely allowed on in-universe pages'''. We should also be less afraid of square or vertical images, though only when it becomes necessary. ''If possible'' infobox images should still be wider than they are tall. But when the DWU gives us lemons, we shouldn't spit out the lemonade. | |||
* '''Official colourisations of comic stories and the like are allowed and valid''', to bring it in line with our policies on all other kinds of special editions. (That being said, colourisation of single frames that are not part of a fully-colourised edition of a given source should not be used outside of galleries and BTS sections.) | |||
* '''We should host uncropped version of promotional images when possible'''. | |||
* The list of licenses should indeed be updated as necessary, but I don't think a Forum thread was inherently necessary to come to that conclusion. | |||
=== On image use === | |||
==== Infoboxes ==== | |||
* '''Professional shots used for real-world people should indeed be left uncropped, or at any rate cropped more generously/diversely than the standars for in-universe pages.''' | |||
* Infobox images for in-universe characters '''should be cropped around the head, but can and generally should include the full head, not crop out the chin and hair'''. In some cases going as low as the shoulder can be justified: the bowtie really should be visible on [[Eleventh Doctor]]! | |||
* Tabbed galleries in infobox should be expanded for such purposes as alternative covers for publications, original vs. updated editions on yer [[Mara]]s and [[Time Scoop]]s (using, in both of these cases, the years as tab names) and, yes, '''non-diegetic recasts''' (using the actor's name for the tabs). I was initially going to specify that actors who play the character at a different age should be their own discussion, but then I remembered that we already do something very similar at [[Kazran Sardick]], so… no, come to think of it, we absolutely ''should'' show [[Caitlin Blackwood]] on a second tab at [[Amy Pond]]. I'll add that although [[User:OttselSpy25]]'s OP mentions “I can think of a ton of uses for this right away. Maybe Oswin Oswald could have a tab featuring her as a human, and another as her as a chained-up Dalek. Maybe Hob could have a pre/post Eldritch horror tab system. etc.”, both these cases were actually already allowed by [[Tardis:Temporary forums/Archive/Replacing docpic#Conclusion]]: | |||
{{quote|As illustrated by Henry Jekyll and Edward Hyde, the tabbed system can be used for many more situations than just Time Lords with multiple known incarnations.|Myself in the old conclusion}} | |||
** By the way: with regards to disallowing links in the tabbed galleries as it "makes using them impossible as the app thinks you've clicked the link to a given page instead" — yes, absolutely. '''That was never meant to be allowed.''' Any and all instances of it should be obliterated on sight. | |||
* As per widespread consensus, there should be '''a preference for characters looking left, but it should not be an absolute rule at all'''. | |||
* If both are available, '''both flag and aerial photo/map can be used to illustrate a country''', using tabs. However, it's not a big deal if we don't always have both and some pages are just-one, others just-the-other. | |||
==== Promotional images ==== | |||
* As per consensus, '''"promotional images" that are essentially illustrations that happened not to be packaged with the story itself should be valid, cited ''to'' the story they apply to'''. For example, a DWM BF preview comic should be cited as "([[AUDIO]]: ''[[Example (audio story)|Example]]'')", no different from an illustration in the booklet. This also applies to '''screenshots from the type of BF trailers that imitate TV "Next Time" trailers, illustrating snapshots of the actual stories at play''', and these should likewise be cited to the audio story under discussion. This '''does not''' apply to fully-original webcasts of the stripe of [[WC]]: ''[[He Who Fights With Monsters (webcast)|He Who Fights With Monsters]]''; images from them should really be cited to the webcasts themselves, and we can't do that until/unless the webcasts are ruled as valid ''qua'' sources. | |||
* As an extension of this, '''promotional images can be used in the infoboxes of missing episodes and to illustrate their events, cited to the TV story itself'''. This is, however, for the time being, a special measure for stories with no available footage; promotional pictures for stories where we ''do'' have the real screenshots should not be used on in-universe pages. | |||
* The suggestion to start using promotional images of characters willy-nilly in e.g. infoboxes '''is, however, rejected'''. It is an essential part of this Wiki's ethos that '''every in-universe element must be cited to a [[Tardis:Valid sources|valid source]]''', and that goes for images as well. To use a promotional image on in-universe pages, it must ''either'' be "lumped in" with a particular valid source it illustrates (as described in the two bullet-points above), or constitute a valid "(illustration)" in its own right as per the parameters set by [[Tardis:Temporary forums/Archive/Non-narrative fiction and Rule 1#Conclusion]]. Which is the case of photographic promotional images ''sometimes'', just not all the time. But fear not, archivists, because… | |||
* …notwithstanding situations like that which arose at [[The Doctor (The Brain of Morbius)]] where the copyright-holders disapprove, '''we should still strive to keep a complete archive of official promotional images on the Wiki''', even if they're not used on in-universe pages. | |||
==== Galleries ==== | |||
The big one. '''We absolutely should introduce /Gallery [[T:SUBPAGE|subpages]] for such things as characters, locations, items, and even species'''. They should always be their own subpages, not subsections of the main page. They should follow a similar set-up to [https://disney.fandom.com/wiki/Merlin/Gallery#Screenshots galleries on many big Wikis such as the Disney Wiki], intuitively similar to the old LOAs format: top-level sections sorting images by "medium", separating images from (or lumped in with) stories from free-floating promotional pictures, which should be presented chronologically. | |||
I will very arbitrarily set the threshold number of images justifying a gallery at '''10''', and have cobbled together a serviceable {{tlx|Gallerylink}} hatnote to be added at the top of pages with galleries. The former can be discussed again at [[Tardis_talk:Subpage policy]] if it proves unsatisfactory, and the latter could probably use a more attractive design than I can give it, which can be workshopped at [[Template_talk:Gallerylink]] by interested parties. | |||
See [[Davros/Gallery]] for an as-yet-stubby example. | |||
==== Misc. ==== | |||
* '''The new maximum for inline thumbnails on in-universe pages should be one image per paragraph, not one image per section'''. | |||
* Although comic colourisations are now ''allowed'', they should not necessarily be preferred over the black-and-white versions. In the case of [[Beep]], for example, different colourisations famously took different sides on the colour of his fur, so it'd be best to simply offer the original black-and-white version in the infobox, and include images depicting the two colour schemes later on. Other images simply look better in black-and-white as thumbnails, with colours serving only to clutter and muddy the details. Let's not get carried away. | |||
-- [[User:Scrooge MacDuck|'''Scrooge MacDuck''']] [[User_talk:Scrooge MacDuck|⊕]] 21:09, 14 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
</div> | |||
