Profile Pictures - Official, Fanart, and Unrelated

[Antvasima]

Didn't we write a regulation text regarding that our members should give credit to the original fan artist based on this or another similar thread?

 

[Bobsican]

Do you mean this?:

• When creating or editing a profile, if you use an image from a fan artist to represent the character/weapon/vehicle/verse in question, insert a text into the image's description page that gives credit to the artist, and if you can, also provide a link to their website or profile on DeviantArt, Tumblr, etcetera.

Well, I think it's missing this part in particular based on the agreement gathered in this thread, and of course applying it.

On the question of stock photos for abstract beings, there's a near-universal consensus against using them. They should be removed from these three pages.

 

[Antvasima]

That is what I referred to, yes.

I don't think that we reached sufficient consensus regarding the other issue that you brought up though, especially if those images are useful representations.

 

[Bobsican]

As it was agreed for the most part in here, these aren't proper representations as much as me grabbing an image for WIkipedia and claiming headcanonly to be X even though we have no physical descriptions to base from to begin with is.
Feel free to ping some staff if you're still unsure.

 

[Antvasima]

If it is only 3 images, the profile pages look much better with them, and accurate visual representations are impossible for these types of abstract entities, I personally think that we should keep them.

Can you write a list of all the staff members that have participated in this thread previously?

 

[Bobsican]

Accurate represenations here would be better with a lack of an image, as they aren't bound to a physical description to begin with, and thus it's headcanon to claim that those are remotely "accurate" with nothing to reference in the first place, as said before.

But anyways...
DontTalkDT, Ultima Reality, DarkDragonMedeus, KLOL506, Plank69, QuasiYuri, SamanPatou, Damage3245, Ogbunaball, Starter_Pack, Abstractions, Celestial_Pegasus, Mr._Bambu, Qawsedf234, Promestein, Zaratthrusta

 

[Antvasima]

On the question of stock photos for abstract beings, there's a near-universal consensus against using them. They should be removed from these three pages.

Well, I think it's missing this part in particular based on the agreement gathered in this thread, and of course applying it.

I don't think that we reached sufficient consensus regarding the other issue that you brought up though, especially if those images are useful representations.

As it was agreed for the most part in here, these aren't proper representations as much as me grabbing an image for WIkipedia and claiming headcanonly to be X even though we have no physical descriptions to base from to begin with is.
Feel free to ping some staff if you're still unsure.

If it is only 3 images, the profile pages look much better with them, and accurate visual representations are impossible for these types of abstract entities, I personally think that we should keep them.

Accurate represenations here would be better with a lack of an image, as they aren't bound to a physical description to begin with, and thus it's headcanon to claim that those are remotely "accurate" with nothing to reference in the first place, as said before.

@DontTalkDT @Ultima_Reality @DarkDragonMedeus @KLOL506 @Planck69 @QuasiYuri @SamanPatou @Damage3245 @Ogbunabali @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @Celestial_Pegasus @Mr._Bambu @Qawsedf234 @Promestein @Zaratthustra

What do you think about this?

 

[Damage3245]

I can understand wanting images for illustrative purposes on articles to enhance their readability but if the images aren't actually depicting what the article is about then the images aren't serving the actual purpose of illustration that 99% of images on articles are actually doing.

I would support removing them. Not every page requires an image.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Thank you for the reply. e should preferably wait for Ultima first though.

 

[Promestein]

Remove 'em.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I can understand wanting images for illustrative purposes on articles to enhance their readability but if the images aren't actually depicting what the article is about then the images aren't serving the actual purpose of illustration that 99% of images on articles are actually doing.

I would support removing them. Not every page requires an image.

More or less in agreement with this. Unrelated images may look nice but unrelated they remain.

 

[QuasiYuri]

Yeet the pics.

Fanart is already a worst-case scenario in term of pictures, so no need for unrelated stuff.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. I seem to be outvoted then. It is too bad to make important pages look worse though.

@Ultima_Reality @Matthew_Schroeder

Can you look for any official representative images instead?

 

[Promestein]

I think pages look much worse with stupid tacky images on them.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Noted.

 

[Bobsican]

In the meantime, maybe we can proceed writing a regulation over this detail to complement the current standards over this topic?
Perhaps something like...

• When creating or editing a profile, if you use an image from a fan artist to represent the character/weapon/vehicle/verse in question, insert a text into the image's description page that gives credit to the artist, and if you can, also provide a link to their website or profile on DeviantArt, Tumblr, etcetera. Note that unrelated images, often for cases that lack enought (if any) physical details whatsoever to derive from, aren't allowed, as they apply unecessary headcanon.

 

[Qawsedf234]

I haven't really changed my stance. Just remove them if they don't accurately show the character. Not everything needs an image.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

What profiles are we even talking about?

 

[MonkeyOfLife]

What if someone makes an image/art exclusively for the profile that looks good and accurate? I mean if we have no idea how they look and we only have text information about them... Is that considered fanart or?

 

[QuasiYuri]

What if someone makes an image/art exclusively for the profile that looks good and accurate? I mean if we have no idea how they look and we only have text information about them... Is that considered fanart or?

They are concepts so no physical stuff.

 

[MonkeyOfLife]

They are concepts so no physical stuff.

What if that concept had some type of description of it or something?

 

[Bobsican]

What if that concept had some type of description of it or something?

It really depends.
If it's like "a human-like body but amorphous", then it'd be explicit enought for some image to be possible to feature, but if it's just like "relates to the concept of X", "has no physical form", "is everything" or "causes Y stuff", then the character in question has no physical details to go of for anything to be remotely accurate to begin with (beyond like a diagram of the concept/cosmology in question, preferably an official one), and that'd be where it's a no.

 

[Antvasima]

What profiles are we even talking about?

See below:

On the question of stock photos for abstract beings, there's a near-universal consensus against using them. They should be removed from these three pages.

 

[Antvasima]

Anyway, since the consensus here is to remove the images, one of our staff member should feel free to do so if they wish.

 

[Bobsican]

In the meantime, maybe we can proceed writing a regulation over this detail to complement the current standards over this topic?
Perhaps something like...

• When creating or editing a profile, if you use an image from a fan artist to represent the character/weapon/vehicle/verse in question, insert a text into the image's description page that gives credit to the artist, and if you can, also provide a link to their website or profile on DeviantArt, Tumblr, etcetera. Note that unrelated images, often for cases that lack enought (if any) physical details whatsoever to derive from, aren't allowed, as they apply unecessary headcanon.

What about this? As this is accepted respectively, it should be pointed out in the Editing Rules accordingly, and the above is a rough edit (bolded part) to sample a wording of it to do so.

 

[Antvasima]

I suppose that it may be fine to add, but the spelling of the text segment needs to be fixed first.

 

[Bobsican]

I'm open for suggestions on what to change, but to avoid this being a one-liner, I'll go ahead and try to improve the current idea further:

• When creating or editing a profile, if you use an image from a fan artist to represent the character/weapon/vehicle/verse in question, insert a text into the image's description page that gives credit to the artist, and if you can, also provide a link to their website or profile on DeviantArt, Tumblr, etcetera. Note that unrelated images, often for cases that lack sufficient (if any) visual details whatsoever to derive from, aren't allowed, as they apply unecessary headcanon and derail from the purpose of illustrating the character or object in an appropiate manner.

 

[Antvasima]

I suppose that might work, although I made minor corrections to your text.

 

[QuasiYuri]

I'm open for suggestions on what to change, but to avoid this being a one-liner, I'll go ahead and try to improve the current idea further:

• When creating or editing a profile, if you use an image from a fan artist to represent the character/weapon/vehicle/verse in question, insert a text into the image's description page that gives credit to the artist, and if you can, also provide a link to their website or profile on DeviantArt, Tumblr, etcetera. Note that unrelated images, often for cases that lack sufficient (if any) visual details whatsoever to derive from, aren't allowed, as they apply unecessary headcanon and derail from the purpose of illustrating the character or object in an appropiate manner.

Maybe we should add that we highly priotize canon stuff before any fanart?

 

[Antvasima]

We do not mind fanart, as long as it is of high enough quality.

 

[Damage3245]

Yes, sometimes a piece of accurate fanart can be significantly better than a canon screenshot of a character for illustrative purposes.

 

[MonkeyOfLife]

Yee but it can seem or be kinda disrespectful

 

[Damage3245]

Yee but it can seem or be kinda disrespectful

Disrespectful to who? The original creator(s)? The makers of the fanart?

 

[MonkeyOfLife]

Disrespectful to who? The original creator(s)? The makers of the fanart?

To fans and stuff, it's kinda like I make a character and then other people uses fan art to represent my character.... That seems quite disrespectful. To the fans of that fiction as well

 

[Damage3245]

To fans and stuff, it's kinda like I make a character and then other people uses fan art to represent my character.... That seems quite disrespectful. To the fans of that fiction as well

Intention is important. Oftentimes we may use fanart not because the original has a terrible art-style but only because the character has low quality images, no good renders, no clear body shots, etc.

It's case-by-case.

 

[MonkeyOfLife]

Intention is important. Oftentimes we may use fanart not because the original has a terrible art-style but only because the character has low quality images, no good renders, no clear body shots, etc.

It's case-by-case.

Well that's ok.

Which is why this should be acceptable I think

Maybe we should add that we highly priotize canon stuff before any fanart?

 

[QuasiYuri]

Intention is important. Oftentimes we may use fanart not because the original has a terrible art-style but only because the character has low quality images, no good renders, no clear body shots, etc.

It's case-by-case.

That's kinda why I want to add the precision I proposed.

Otherwise 8-bits game characters would risk having fanart for them just because it isn't the best artstyle.

Like, unless there really is no alternative because of the reasons you mentionned, canon should be a priority.

 

[Antvasima]

I personally strongly agree with Damage here.

 

[Damage3245]

I can't agree that canon should always be a priority. Sometimes renders from other sources such as video games can be significantly better than an anime render. Certain Dragon Ball characters come to mind.

 

[Antvasima]

Yes, strongly agreed.