Forum:CT:Images: Fan Modifications

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Images: Fan Modifications


This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus Track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record.
The result of the debate was

  1. Images for use in the main body of an article may not be deliberately recolored.
  2. The subject of an image can be isolated and placed on a neutral background.
  3. Comic speech bubbles may be blanked or completely removed. This remains optional.
  4. Fan-created logos may be used provided they are drawn from a canonical source.


As per Aayla Secura, just how far should the policy of "No fanon" in images extend? I propose several policies. Obviously, this will not contradict the previous consensus of infobox images are to be selected by whatever looks best and the simple policies of resizing, cropping, brightening/darkening remain in place. Also, as per Boba Fett, the image has to from an official source. This vote is for how far do we allow those official images to be modified so they don't look awkward in the article. This is all assumes that the changes made are done well and look like whatever elements have been changed, don't look like it's been changed from something else.

Vote

Colors

Colors can be changed to match other sources

  1. Darth Culator (Talk)(Kills) 23:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. RedemptionRedemptionusersymbolTalk 18:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Only in a few cases, and only if footnoted or discussed in the BtS section. —Silly Dan (talk) 18:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. Whilst it's a fan modification, it's probably more canoninical. Such as Mara on the back of Allegiance having a red sabre instead of a purple one. .... 21:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

No color changes - no matter what other sources have

  1. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 23:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support. Time for Ben Skywalker and Rokur Gepta to go. jSarek 23:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. This is ridiculous. —Xwing328(Talk) 23:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. Oops...just reverted one, and was then told of this. :) —Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 00:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. \\Captain Kwenn// — Ahoy! 09:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. I didn't mind that much for Gepta, but the Ben one really doesn't feel right, so to be consistent, this. - Lord Hydronium 11:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  7. Green Tentacle (Talk) 13:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  8. Chack Jadson 22:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  9. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Audience Chamber) 22:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  10. Charlii 15:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  11. Craven 16:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  12. Muuuuuurgh 20:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  13. Ozzel 01:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  14. KEJ 18:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Background

Any image can be cut out of its image and placed on a neutral colored background

  1. So much less trouble than holding a consensus track every time two people debate if a background is "distracting" Wildyoda 23:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. You better have good photo-editing skills though, and not alter the subject whatsoever. —Xwing328(Talk) 23:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Cull Tremayne 23:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC) - Agree, no altering of the subject. Why is it wrong to cut out a background? It's not hurting anything, it's not fanon. Why are we arguing this?
  4. I've never had a problem with this. As long as the main subject of the image is unaltered, it doesn't hurt anything. Darth Culator (Talk)(Kills) 23:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. I don't mind us doing this to bring focus to the image being portrayed. —Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 00:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. JMAS 02:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  7. Green Tentacle (Talk) 13:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  8. RedemptionRedemptionusersymbolTalk 18:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  9. Volemlock 19:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  10. Per Xwing, and as long as the background is neutral. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Audience Chamber) 22:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  11. Jasca Ducato Sith Council Sith Campaign 14:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

If image is determined to have a distracting background, only then can it be placed on neutral colored background

Images can be cut from stylized geometric backgrounds (as are often used in magazines), but not canonical backgrounds

  1. Support. I hope you don't mind me adding this option. I don't mind people cutting out funky lines that were only in a magazine for aesthetic purposes, but they shouldn't be removing canon backgrounds. jSarek 23:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 23:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Lord Hydronium 11:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. —Silly Dan (talk) 18:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. Charlii 15:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. QuentinGeorge 05:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  7. Craven 16:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  8. Muuuuuurgh 20:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  9. Ozzel 01:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  10. LtNOWIS 03:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  11. Good compromise. -Fnlayson 18:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  12. KEJ 18:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

No background changes at all

  1. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 23:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  1. \\Captain Kwenn// — Ahoy! 09:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Comic Bubbles

Blank out comic bubbles

  1. Distracting (probably ruins the effect of my above vote) :) Wildyoda 23:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. This has already been decided, that unless the text is necessary, blank it. —Xwing328(Talk) 23:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Remove bubbles entirely provided the subject is not altered

  1. Cull Tremayne 23:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC) - This has already been done on several images. It helps draw the attention to the subject of the image and not the stupid bubbles.
  2. If a bubble can be removed, kill it. If it can't be removed, blank it. Darth Culator (Talk)(Kills) 23:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Wouldn't this mean you'd have to remove the background too, even though you may want it? —Xwing328(Talk) 00:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
      • I assume this is referring to "patching" the bubble. For example, if the background is green, filling in the bubble with the same color or design. Cull Tremayne 01:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
        • Exactly. Like here or [[:File:Shadow_droid.jpg|here]], where the bubble covers something that can be cloned over. -- Darth Culator (Talk)(Kills) 01:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Per Culator. —Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 00:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. Ditto what Darth Culator said. - JMAS 02:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. Per Culator. Green Tentacle (Talk) 14:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. RedemptionRedemptionusersymbolTalk 18:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  7. This should be OK (though we shouldn't get too snippy with users whose image manipulation skills and software aren't up to the task.) —Silly Dan (talk) 18:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  8. .... 22:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  9. Per Culator. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Audience Chamber) 22:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  10. Volemlock 09:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  11. Charlii 15:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  12. QuentinGeorge 05:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep bubbles and text

  1. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 23:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Cull Tremayne 23:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC) If the bubbles can't be removed. This is the best. However, only if the whole text is inside. If half of it is cut off, then might as well blank it. Seriously, it's a different decision for each situation. There doesn't need to be a policy on this! This is ridiculous. Cull Tremayne 23:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. \\Captain Kwenn// — Ahoy! 09:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. Per Cull. Chack Jadson 22:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. No edits. If you can't clean up the picture with creative cropping, then don't clean it up. jSarek 12:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. Muuuuuurgh 20:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  7. Sikon 16:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  8. I'm happy with leavin them as is. Fnlayson 18:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  9. KEJ 18:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  10. Vryce 05:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Symbols

Fan-Created provided it's from an accurate source

  1. I think if there are any major problems, they'd be dealt with on a case-by-case basis anyway. A lot of times there is pretty much only one interpretation of the description of a symbol but no officially sanctioned image. For instance squadron logos. Wildyoda 23:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Taking simple line-art and reinterpreting it in a cleaner form is perfectly fine. Like [[:File:Cislogo.png|this]] and [[:File:Republican_Emblem.png|this]] and this. Darth Culator (Talk)(Kills) 23:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Unlike the other kinds of images brought up, a canon logo is the same logo whether it's by itself, on a flag, on a ship, or anywhere else. - Lord Hydronium 11:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. RedemptionRedemptionusersymbolTalk 18:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. If we don't allow this, Rank insignia of the Galactic Empire and Rank insignia of the Rebel Alliance won't be as informative as they could be. —Silly Dan (talk) 18:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. Volemlock 19:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  7. Charlii 15:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  8. QuentinGeorge 05:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  9. As long as you just recreate unusable canon images (too small, blurry etc.). But no fan interpretations of symbols that were only described in text. --Craven 16:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Only fan coloring of official black-and white symbols, per canon descriptions

Only allow symbols that are "officially made"

  1. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 23:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support jSarek 23:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. —Xwing328(Talk) 23:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. —Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 00:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. \\Captain Kwenn// — Ahoy! 09:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. Green Tentacle (Talk) 14:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  7. KEJ 18:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Comments

  • Can somebody explain the color thing? Colors in what types of images? Are we talking about:
    • just de-saturating the image in photoshop for clarity and visibility?
    • making an abonormally colored lightsaber from a promotional image the color the person normally uses?
    • making Aayla Secura a Lethan Twi'lek?

Just wondering Wildyoda 23:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

  • The blanking out comic bubbles has been voted on multiple times before. That part of this vote is pointless, because it has been decided unless the text is relevent and necessary for the image to work, it should be removed. For others, yes, remove the background if it is distracting...but don't you dare change any colors or make any actual alterations besides adjustments to blur (when scanning comics), etc. If you do, then it would be fanon. —Xwing328(Talk) 23:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, I don't find any of the bubble options listed completely satisfactory. As Xwing said, we came to somewhat of a consensus on this recently. If the text relevant, keep it. If it's partially cropped or useless out of context, remove it. -- Ozzel 03:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  • My stance is that we shouldn't be using fan-modified images at all. Now, I hope it's clear among everyone that these are fan-edited images; anything added to or removed from an image by someone other than an official source is fan-editing. Now, to be honest, I'm fairly ambivilent towards using cleaned-up images in and of themselves, but, if we make it a general rule to "create" the best possible image, we'll only be propogating the use of fanon images, and the 'net is already full of unsourced, modified images from Force-knows-where. If we start using edited images and pass them off as canon, we'll be doing a disservice to the fan community, IMO. Bottom line: we shouldn't be spreading images that are not canon - \\Captain Kwenn// — Ahoy! 11:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I'd like to clarify something. Removing a busy and distracting background from an image and giving it a simple solid colored backdrop while leaving the main subject unaltered does not make the image fanon. If you remove the background and replace it with another different background, that would be fanon. Otherwise, I agree with you. - JMAS 14:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
      • What about instances like the Krynda Draay main image? The subject itself has been clearly modified, although Redemption doesn't see it that way - \\Captain Kwenn// — Ahoy! 15:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
        • Technically, I did not add anything into the image. Simply flipped her right side to her left so it was symmetrical...and the fact that it went unnoticed since October and it took me to actually say it was modified in someway, says alot about the illusion. --RedemptionRedemptionusersymbolTalk 18:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
          • And that's exactly my point. Fanon being passed off as canon. We shouldn't be letting it continue - \\Captain Kwenn// — Ahoy! 18:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
            • Considering the current standings and the fact that you've made that point before, it is moot. --RedemptionRedemptionusersymbolTalk 18:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
              • No, it's not moot, because it's a valid opinion. Why exactly are we passing fanon off as canon? We don't do it with text, so why images? - \\Captain Kwenn// — Ahoy! 19:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
                • And that sir is why you will never understand. --RedemptionRedemptionusersymbolTalk 19:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
                  • Assume I'm not taking offense to your patronizing tone, and please explain it to me, then. I've offered my POV, whereas you've just blankly rejected it without giving any good reason why it's fine to distribute edited images - \\Captain Kwenn// — Ahoy! 21:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
                    • I assume nothing. It's fine since the subject is not being edited. Krynda Draays dress is not the subject. And it's not like it's being edited so it has a weird pattern or some "creative flair" to it. Not once have I uploaded an image where the subject was altered to look different. It's always been simply color alterations (Jolees lightsaber), removal of backgrounds (Brianna) or bubble removal (Krynda, Arvan). We're staying within canon. The fact that it was a fan and not an official of Lucasfilms, Arts or DarkHorse did is the only thing that would place it outside continutiy - in which every single freakin edit to an image that is possible (no matter how small) would be a fan edit and thus fanon. --RedemptionRedemptionusersymbolTalk 21:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
                      • Which is why I've voted against such a thing - \\Captain Kwenn// — Ahoy! 22:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
                        • Which means your voting aganist high quality images. The way we fix the images would be considered fan edits. If we went by your standards, we'd have some ugly ass articles. --RedemptionRedemptionusersymbolTalk 22:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I'd like to point out that the Krynda Draay picture has been "modified" past the point of any canonicity. Take this picture for starting - [1]. How do you know her dress is symmetrical and nothing is hidden under the text bubble, such as a rank insignia or a wine stain or anything else for that matter? Who knows...but now we have this because of that - [2]. Sure, if the background is solid green (or blue, etc.) remove the bubble, like the upper left bubble was removed. Otherwise, just blank out the text since we KNOW it should be a white (in most cases) speech bubble. However, adding a viewer's interpretation of the art beneath the bubble should not be considered acceptable. Either way though, whether a bubble is blanked or removed altogether and replaced with a fan's interpretation of the proper subject matter, it should be noted as such. —Xwing328(Talk) 22:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
    • "Which means your voting aganist high quality images. The way we fix the images would be considered fan edits. If we went by your standards, we'd have some ugly ass articles". Then "ugly ass" articles we should have. Need I point out they're not even our images to edit in the first place; they're only really allowed to be shown here to demonstrate an element of the text. We should take what is given, not try and "perfect" images just because there's something about them we don't like - \\Captain Kwenn// — Ahoy! 22:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
      • And that is why we are in this mess. Because you clearly have very low standards while I have higher standards. If you want to go on a little crusade and butcher the images, go on right ahead and see how far you get before realizing that the work done is only helping. --RedemptionRedemptionusersymbolTalk 22:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
        • So, all images found in any official product are low quality, then? We take the images as they are presented in official sources. How can that possibly be misconstrued butchering? - \\Captain Kwenn// — Ahoy! 22:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
          • Not all...but a good majority of images are in poor quality. The ones that aren't found on the official site however, are in poor quality and we have to fix them up. Your the kind of person who never takes his car to be washed to put it lightly. The point of fixing up images and removing bubbles is not to establish our own form of continuity. It's simply to remove any distracting elements of an image. --RedemptionRedemptionusersymbolTalk 22:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
            • Again, I think it's a bit much to state every image not found on the Official Site is poor quality. So, panels from Dark Times, KotOR, Legacy, Rebellion etc are all far too low quality to be used here, then? That sounds a little...well, arrogant, actually. And why should we be removing "distracting" elements? As long as the subject is prominent enough in the image, it should be used as is. If not, then it's not worth adding - \\Captain Kwenn// — Ahoy! 22:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
              • Why should we do ANYTHING then? Why should we waste our time contributing to this damn wiki. Why should we bother spend so much time and effort into it? Why? Because we can. If we can make an image better without distracting elements then we should. "Worth" is a factor for time. You may see it as a waste of time while I have plenty of time to put into images. It's always worth getting an image to near perfection. --RedemptionRedemptionusersymbolTalk 23:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Here's a little example of what I think. Note that the only thing I'm complaining about is adding to a picture, not taking away content. What I really think we need is just a compromise between the two. —Xwing328(Talk) 23:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

<gallery> File:Kryndahead1.jpg|Unaltered original File:Kryndahead2.jpg|Stripped to bare minimum File:Kryndahead.jpg|Fan altered<br />(added dress) File:Kryndahead3.jpg|Possibly compromise </gallery>

  • Obviously, there are strong opinions on this matter, but it's not worth the time of exchanging insults and belittlement. I think we can discuss our ideas and differences without being rude. If you're going to just argue the same points over and over, please take it to each other's talk pages. Let's keep civility and have no persona l attacks in mind. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Audience Chamber) 23:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
    • The advantage of the compromise shown above is that almost any user can do it. It takes very little time at all. The more talented users could go so far as to remove the top bubble too. But I feel we should take the middle ground and draw the line there, not going for one extreme or the other. —Xwing328(Talk)
      • Out of those examples, I'd prefer option 1, but option 4 is the best compromise, so I'd rather have that than something like 2 or 3. They alter the image a little too much - \\Captain Kwenn// — Ahoy! 10:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

See also

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made elsewhere.