Forum:CT:Removing deadnames from images

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Removing deadnames from images
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 Support proposal; Option C; Do not add new text. 1358 (Talk) 19:26, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

At the moment, we have a local image policy that's in conflict with the global prohibition regarding the deadnames of real people who are transgender. Since we shouldn't retain images that have someone's deadname present, our options are deleting those images or editing them; however, our local policies about edited images don't account for this. The basic goal is to revise our image policy to permit editing for the purposes of removing deadnames so that we may replace images with edited versions. The expanded goal is to standardize how we accomplish this.

Regardless of the specific outcome, images with deadnames must be removed; what we're deciding is whether the removal is by replacing all such images with edited versions or default to deleting images without replacements. Since Fandom has not provided specific guidance regarding images, we're proactively deciding ourselves how to fix this.

Basic goal

Here are some of the existing conflicts in Wookieepedia:Images, under the section titled Edited images: "Images should be true to their source. However, a small amount of editing is permissible in order to enhance an image's usefulness or illustrative capability. Excessively edited images may be deleted at the discretion of the administration."

  • Restoration and enhancement, point 2: "Other minor edits to improve or restore the quality of an image, such as scratch removal, denoising, or other minor modifications may also be applied, provided the purpose of the editing is to improve the visibility and/or usefulness of an image and not to alter its original content."
  • Restoration and enhancement, point 3: "Artist signatures should never be edited out of images unless the signature happens to be removed through simple cropping."

To achieve the basic goal, this proposal is to either support or oppose creating an exception for image edits related to the deadnames of transgender people. Creating an exception would allow us to begin image edits instead of deleting images that have deadnames on them.

Please note that the vote is for which position to take rather than voting on the exact wording of the exception in case someone offers a better suggestion for how to word it, so please know that you're voting on the spirit rather than specific wording. However, I propose adding the bolded sentence to the section Wookieepedia:Images#Edited images:
"Images should be true to their source. However, a small amount of editing is permissible in order to enhance an image's usefulness or illustrative capability. Excessively edited images may be deleted at the discretion of the administration. These image editing policies do not apply to edits related to a transgender person's deadname."

(Exactly what form of editing should be done, such as adding text to replace names or putting a colored bar over them, is being proposed below, as different people have different thoughts about exactly how to best do that.)

Support creating an exception

  1. Immi Thrax RainbowRebellion2 (talk) 16:40, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
  2. 01miki10 Open comlink 16:44, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
  3. NBDani (talk) 16:46, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
  4. OOM 224 16:47, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
  5. JediMasterMacaroni(Talk) 16:47, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
  6. Erebus Chronus (Talk) 16:53, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
  7. YakovChaimTzvi (he/him/his) ChissAscendancyCanonSymbol (talk) 16:53, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
  8. VergenceScatter (talk) 16:56, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
  9. Ayrehead02 (talk) 17:04, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
  10. Lelal Mekha The Uprising crest (Audience Room) 18:48, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
  11. Ramsay Sanders (talk) 19:08, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
  12. Rakhsh (talk) 20:45, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
  13. Cade GalacticRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit Calrayn 21:09, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
  14. Tommy-Macaroni 21:28, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
  15. Manoof (he/him/his) (talk) 22:32, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
  16. Zed42 (talk) 23:22, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
  17. MasterFredCommerce Guild(talk) 23:25, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
  18. IFYLOFD (Talk) 00:06, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
  19. DarthRuiz30 (talk) 01:12, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
  20. Dentface (talk) 02:07, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
  21. jSarek (talk) 08:51, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
  22. --Vitus InfinitusTalk 18:10, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
  23. Fan26 (Talk) 02:45, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
  24. Supreme Emperor Holocomm 03:18, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
  25. Braha'tok enthusiast Hello there 09:55, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
  26. grunny@wookieepedia:~$ 12:26, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
  27. 1358 (Talk) 18:33, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
  28. NanoLuukeCloning facility 11:07, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose creating an exception

Expanded goal

If the above passes, these parts would also be added according to which has the most support.

The expanded goal—providing standards on how to remove deadnames from images—has had multiple options proposed, so this is a vote between different choices rather than a simple support/oppose vote. In situations regarding an artist's signature that contains their deadname, we would still ensure they receive credit for their work via the image fields artist= and cat artist=. The wording of a policy for this goal is dependent on which combination of options are supported, but if passed, it would add a further subsection to Wookieepedia:Images under the "Edited images" section. We would indicate the image has been edited from the original in the filespecs= field with a link to the policy.

Coverage

The manner of covering the deadname has had several possibilities suggested:

  • A) Cover the deadname with a solid-colored box in a color chosen to intentionally stand out from the background of that section of the image (such as a black box on a white section, a red box on a green section, a yellow box on a blue section)
  • B) Cover the deadname with a solid-colored box of a specified color used for every image that has a deadname removed (such as black or yellow on every image regardless of background color)
  • C) Cover the deadname with a solid-colored box in a color derived from that image (for instance, orange if the image is largely orange, but black if the deadname is on a black background)
  • D) "Erase" the deadname through image editing to blend that area with the background and minimize the appearance of being edited (for instance, using Photoshop's "content-aware fill" to mimic the surrounding texture)

Option A would deliberately call attention to the image being edited. Option B would look less obvious on images that happen to be of the color chosen for this purpose, but look very obvious on images that don't match that color. Option C would be customized per image to be less obvious than A or B, though edits would be still be apparent when the background isn't a solid color. Option D would involve extensive image manipulation when the background isn't a solid color.

Please choose one option:

Option A

  1. NBDani (talk) 16:45, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
  2. I feel like we should be transparent to readers/visitors about when we edit an image by making the edit as obvious as possible Manoof (he/him/his) (talk) 22:32, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
  3. Per above. Trying to hide it strays dangerously close to censorship IMO. Sure it may stand out, but in a sense there's precedent for it-blanked out speech bubbles from cropped comic panels or the "pointer arrow thingies" in cropped images from the visual guides to the newer movies. Fan26 (Talk) 02:48, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Option B

Option C

  1. Immi Thrax RainbowRebellion2 (talk) 16:40, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
  2. 01miki10 Open comlink 16:44, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
  3. OOM 224 16:47, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
  4. JediMasterMacaroni(Talk) 16:51, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
  5. Erebus Chronus (Talk) 16:53, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
  6. I’m cool with C or D, but D is more work YakovChaimTzvi (he/him/his) ChissAscendancyCanonSymbol (talk) 16:53, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
  7. Don't really see why we'd make it so obvious where we removed information. VergenceScatter (talk) 16:56, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
  8. Ayrehead02 (talk) 17:04, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
  9. Lelal Mekha The Uprising crest (Audience Room)
  10. Ramsay Sanders (talk) 19:08, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
  11. Rakhsh (talk) 20:45, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
  12. Cade GalacticRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit Calrayn 21:09, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
  13. Tommy-Macaroni 21:28, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
  14. Zed42 (talk) 23:22, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
  15. I went back and forth on this one thinking we might want to indicate clearly when an official image has information removed in order to better serve our encyclopedic purpose, but that will at least ultimately be made clear on the file page, so aesthetics can win out here. MasterFredCommerce Guild(talk) 23:25, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
  16. IFYLOFD (Talk) 00:06, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
  17. DarthRuiz30 (talk) 01:12, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
  18. Dentface (talk) 02:09, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
  19. --Vitus InfinitusTalk 18:10, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
  20. Supreme Emperor Holocomm 03:19, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
  21. grunny@wookieepedia:~$ 12:26, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
  22. 1358 (Talk) 18:33, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
  23. Per Fred, as long as filespecs is properly informed (without using the deadname itself, obviously), it's all good. --NanoLuukeCloning facility 11:07, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Option D

  1. This is actually a vote for Options C and D, per my points in the Discussion; but since I can only vote for one... jSarek (talk) 08:51, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
  2. Same as JSarek. Braha'tok enthusiast Hello there 09:55, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Additional text

A further consideration is what to do about people's correct names:

  • 1) Cover the deadname without adding new text containing the correct name
  • 2) Cover the deadname and add new text containing the correct name

Option 1 involves less modification than option 2 since the latter adds additional information not present in the original image, while option 2 provides the correct information.

Option 1: Do not add new text

  1. Immi Thrax RainbowRebellion2 (talk) 16:40, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
  2. 01miki10 Open comlink 16:44, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
  3. NBDani (talk) 16:46, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
  4. OOM 224 16:47, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
  5. JediMasterMacaroni(Talk) 16:47, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
  6. Erebus Chronus (Talk) 16:53, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
  7. VergenceScatter (talk) 16:56, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
  8. No need to add the correct name to the image. It should be included somewhere in the {{Information}} template on the image’s file page. • YakovChaimTzvi (he/him/his) ChissAscendancyCanonSymbol (talk) 17:01, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
  9. Ayrehead02 (talk) 17:04, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
  10. Lelal Mekha The Uprising crest (Audience Room)
  11. Ramsay Sanders (talk) 19:08, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
  12. Rakhsh (talk) 20:45, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
  13. Cade GalacticRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit Calrayn 21:09, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
  14. Tommy-Macaroni 21:28, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
  15. Image details should link to the relevant individual Manoof (he/him/his) (talk) 22:32, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
  16. Zed42 (talk) 23:22, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
  17. MasterFredCommerce Guild(talk) 23:25, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
  18. IFYLOFD (Talk) 00:06, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
  19. DarthRuiz30 (talk) 01:12, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
  20. Dentface (talk) 02:09, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
  21. We don't worry about putting a signature "back" when it gets lost due to simple cropping, because the image is still attributed on the details page. I see no reason to do any different here. jSarek (talk) 08:51, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
  22. --Vitus InfinitusTalk 18:11, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
  23. Fan26 (Talk) 02:49, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
  24. Braha'tok enthusiast Hello there 09:55, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
  25. grunny@wookieepedia:~$ 12:26, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
  26. 1358 (Talk) 18:33, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
  27. NanoLuukeCloning facility 11:07, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Option 2: Add new text

Discussion

  • I think we may want a certain amount of flexibility in "Coverage" that wouldn't be supported by enshrining one and only one of the suggestions in that section into policy. Option "D" is problematic on its own, because it limits uploads of pictures with deadname signatures to those uploaders who possess the necessary skill, tools, and desire to make the required edits beforehand. On the other hand, having a policy of always slapping a box of color over the signature may undesirably obscure details of the underlying image. For instance (and here I'm intentionally using artists who are not deadnamed as my examples, so as not to draw any extra attention to a pic with an actual deadname on it), just putting a box over Tim and Greg Hildebrandt's signature in this image would hide elements of the Outrider's control panel; doing it here would cover up parts of the arm mechanism of the Unidentified serving droid in the only image we have of it. So I would suggest making Option "C" a minimum (I agree with the sentiment that intentionally drawing extra attention to the removed information gains us nothing but poorer aesthetics), but to optionally allow for a more tailored edit, per Option "D," when it's appropriate to preserve the integrity of the image and the information therein. jSarek (talk) 08:51, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
    • I agree. -- YakovChaimTzvi (he/him/his) ChissAscendancyCanonSymbol (talk) 18:04, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
    • I think I understand your point (it's about the loss of detail?). The problem I personally see with significant image editing isn't about the skill level to achieve a good result, but about how much manipulation is being done to the image by someone other than the original artist and/or copyright holder, compared to the addition of a simple element. (It's my feeling that for future uploads, if someone isn't capable of removing a deadname, they shouldn't upload that image themselves since it introduces a new file containing content we won't host.) Are you thinking of something that's more shaped-like-the-signature/covering-only-the-signature? Immi Thrax RainbowRebellion2 (talk) 19:34, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
      • Yes, it's about loss of detail in the image. I agree that manipulating the image is a dicey area that probably shouldn't be engaged in often, but it may occasionally be necessary to meet the competing needs of giving our readership informative images while preventing the dissemination of deadnames. My feeling is the same as yours for future uploads; that's why I think we need Option C as a minimum and Option D as an option, so that a user always has the opportunity to add an image, even if all they have is MS Paint and the image-editing skill of a particularly bright pangolin. As for what I'm thinking specifically, I was thinking of cloning it out, but in retrospect I don't think that would be necessary in all but the most extreme cases. In the examples I gave above, a set of multiple small boxes would probably leave enough of the control panel intact in the first image, while a sort of trapezoid with a cutout would probably be sufficient to view the arm in the second. I guess, ultimately, I don't have a specific thing in mind; what I want is for editors in the future to have the flexibility to completely remove a deadname with as little compromise as possible on giving our readers the best and most informative image we can. jSarek (talk) 00:55, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
        • I'm having a memory lapse over who suggested this, but someone suggested wording it as a "shape" instead of a "box" so it can be flexible to whatever suits the needs of the particular image—rectangle, trapezoid, squiggly line... whatever's enough to make the deadname unreadable. (... I do like pangolins.) Immi Thrax RainbowRebellion2 (she/her) (talk) 02:39, 11 October 2021 (UTC)