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, this page's talk page or new Consensus Track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was number 9 … number 9 … —Silly Dan _(talk) 02:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

---

It has been brought up various times in the General Grievous talk page that there is a general will to change the main picture. Here are 8 candidates (including the one already there) for main picture of the Grievous article.

There is also a good image at OfficialPix [1] that will require spending money if chosen.

Contents 1 Picture 1 2 Picture 2 3 Picture 3 4 Picture 4 5 Picture 5 6 Picture 6 7 Picture 7 8 Picture 8 9 Picture 9 10 Comments 11 More comments 12 Copyright Issue 13 And the Winner is...

Picture 1Edit

1. Chack Jadson 13:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Picture 2Edit

Picture 3Edit

Picture 4Edit

1. The Broox 03:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
2. I think this is a good picture simply because a reference picture should show as much of the character as possible, even their personality. This picture shows a lot of him, including his two arms, and gives him a slightly imposing feel. -- ChinaMonroe 01:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
3. I like this one, though I'd be fine with any of them except 3 and 5.Darth Ceratis 19:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
4. I agree with chinamonroe. i think this is the good one. Mandofett 20:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Picture 5Edit

Picture 6Edit

1. This one. It shows good detail while still showing a fair amount of his body. -Fnlayson 14:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
2. A headshot would work fine for a humanoid, but Grievous's main pic should show a bit more of what he's become. jSarek 20:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Picture 7Edit

1. Headshot; superior to the Official Pix one. Havac 01:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
2. Better angle than OfficialPix.--DannyBoy7783 08:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
3. Very nice -Solus 21:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
4. Headshots are best, and I can't vote to spend someone else's money. This one's better than the official pix anyway. - Trip 05:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
5. I thought I voted already.--Valin Kenobi 03:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Picture 8Edit

1. Sauron18 00:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
2. Ozzel 01:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
3. I didn't realize pic 7 was an illustration. I vote for this one then because it shows him clearly.--DannyBoy7783 21:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
4. --IG-Prime^{(Sentience Core)}17px 22:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
5. Headshots don't do him justice. -- Riffsyphon1024 22:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
6. Sentry^Talk 22:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
7. I abhor the OfficialPix one--mug shots are so bland and lifeless. And while Number 7 is fabulous, I reckon we shouldn't use a drawing when a "photo" is available.Valin Kenobi 03:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
8. Cutch 05:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
9. Good image Joker1138^(Mandalore)
10. I think this is the best out of those choices, though Pic 2 comes pretty close. JMAS 00:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
11. Leader 02:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)Leader
12. Yoshi626 04:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Picture 9Edit

1. I'm the one who is spending a two hour salary to get it. I should support it. =P --Redemption^Talk 00:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
2. This is definitely a case where a headshot is better than a full-body image. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 01:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
3. This one is definitely the best one for an encyclopedic purpose. I vote for it. -- Kaal 12:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
4. Go the portrait! .... 00:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
5. Though 8 is fine if this one doesn't make it. Uxviii 05:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
6. Though I'd like to see some of the other images, particuarly 1 and 8, elsewhere in the article - \\Captain Kwenn// ^{— Ahoy!} 15:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
7. Roron Corobb 21:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
8. Darth Abeonis _{Sith Council} ^{(Sith Campaign)} 22:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
9. Imp 23:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
10. Per Kaal. (Too bad Picture 7 is an unofficial illustration though, I would've supported it otherwise.) —Mirlen 01:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Unofficial? It's from the NEC. —Unsigned comment by 66.82.9.60 (talk • contribs).
      • What I meant was that it was less official compared to Picture 9. My reason for supporting Picture 9 instead of Picture 7 is the same reason why Aayla Secura's infobox pic is that from the movies instead of the painting by Jon Foster. —Mirlen 02:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
11. Purpilia 04:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
12. Trip 04:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
13. Sentry^Talk 07:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
14. Darth Culator ^(Talk)(TINC) 12:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
15. Cull Tremayne 09:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)—You actually paid for it? (starts slow clap).
16. JMAS 19:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
17. -Solus 17:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

CommentsEdit

• Doesn't Official Pix have a big word across the front of it?--IG-Prime^{(Sentience Core)}17px 22:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Not when it's purchased. It only has words across it now so no one else can use it without the words appearing. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 22:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I see. Thanks.--IG-Prime^{(Sentience Core)}17px 22:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Number 8...oh boy. Not good. Anyway, if we wanted to stay with a full-body shot, then we would stick with the current one, which is bigger and of better quality I should add...--Redemption^Talk 01:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The current one is not of greater quality, the model used for pose there is quite incomplete and inferior compared to the movie quality model used for Number 8 and most other promo shots now. --Sauron18 03:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry but you need to have your eyes checked or have your screen clean. #8 is of horrible, HORRIBLE quality (compared to the current one at least). And from what I'm seeing, I can see every gear in that image. --Redemption^Talk 03:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
      • The photo is smaller, yes, but the image itself is not of bad quality, and the Grievous model is the one from the movie. The one in the current picture is from an early spoiler model, and you can clearly see it is not the movie quality model. --Sauron18 03:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
        • All promo shots are early spoiler models...#8 is indeed of bad quality and not movie like. Like i said before, the cape looks like it was put on with photoshop. --Redemption^Talk 03:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
          • Um, not really. The promo shots I'm referring to are the ones that came out in the books and such, the one which is currently up is from before that, a leaked image, and not movie quality. The "legal" promo shots are movie quality, and the cape is movie quality. Trust me, I've seen a very large version of that image and it looks exactly like Grievous. So does this one, for that matter. --Sauron18 03:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
            • You know, I think if Redemption is going to pay for the Grievous pic, we should use it by default. It's only fair. .... 03:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
              • Well he doesn't have to pay for it unless it is chosen. This is to check if the image is worth getting, because if he bought it and nobody wanted it then it would be a bad scenario. Hopefully this will prevent it one way or another. --Sauron18 03:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
                • It's very good...it's certainly the most realistic candidate. .... 03:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
                  • I have no intentions of spending any money on anything that isn't going to be used. --Redemption^Talk 03:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
                    • And fair enough. .... 04:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
                      • Needless to say that people seem to lack taste and common sense...and I know I'm going to get the sharp end of a knife for that comment.--Redemption^Talk 00:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
                        • And fair enough. -- Ozzel 01:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Ok, now I'm confused, there's another one of these in the consensus page, but it doesn't include all of the votes already made here (there are less votes in total). What's going on?—Unsigned comment by Sauron18 (talk • contribs).
  • I think someone tried to move it from CT to here (or vice versa?) but failed to get rid of the old one and that one's been picking up couple votes now. Admins need to clean this up.Havac 03:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Ah, well if my count is correct (and it very well might not be), than a total of 9 votes are missing, the rest shifting a bit, but 9 missing. --Sauron18 03:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
      • To whomever put it in "Speedy Deletion". We can't just delete it, there are 9 votes here that were not in the other one. Either they are transported or something is done, but it can't just be deleted. --Sauron18 06:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
        • Sure we can. Either way, this is not considered. This is supposed to be in the Consensus Track, not in the Senate Hall, so the CT takes credence. .... 07:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
          • This one was made first though, and it's because someone didn't delete it after they remade it that the votes kept on coming, which means that the votes not included on the other page should be transferred. The ones which are repeated won't be transferred. --Sauron18 07:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

More commentsEdit

• Doesn't Official Pix have a big word across the front of it?--IG-Prime^{(Sentience Core)}17px 22:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I have put this, here
    • It does, but only on the page. Once it has been purchased the wording shall be removed. it's just there to prevent people cut&pasteing it straight from the web. Darth Abeonis _{Sith Council} ^{(Sith Campaign)} 22:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Dear God, that is one sweet-res official pix image. Thanks, Redemption! =) --Imp 21:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • We...have to put that in the infobox. .... 21:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Give it another day or so. If nobody else votes then put it in. --Redemption^Talk 22:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
      • That image is the epitomy of what we should have in infoboxes. Thanks, Redemption. .... 01:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Um, why do we have to pages? There's also this [[2]] vote page, which in fact has more votes in total....--Sauron18 03:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Unless they put their votes back in then Image 9 goes into the infobox. --Redemption^Talk 03:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Don't get too hasty,about 9 votes in total are missing, something weird happened with these two threads, hopefully we will fix them to see the complete result. --Sauron18 03:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Ah, there we go, thanks. --Sauron18 07:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I just merged the two pages. If anyone has voted for more than one proposal, please strike one of them out.–Sentry^Talk 07:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Copyright IssueEdit

• Is it really kosher to use a paid-for-image as fair use? QuentinGeorge 07:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I think it's ok, I mean, we use book scans and somebody's gotta buy the book to scan it....Then again, Official Pix may have a specific policy, but I wouldn't know about that. --Sauron18 07:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
    • If we can't use that, we could always gratuitously crop the VD cover... .... 07:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
    • That's because an image out of a book is only a tiny part of the book. Using a paid-for image is using the whole image, and is certainly not Fair Use. I suggest we not only remove the Official Pix image from consideration, but also any other images we may have that come from them. jSarek 09:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
      • I agree. Especially as the image we have seems to be about full-size, so any old bloke can copy it to his computer and have the Official Pix image without paying for it. Delete that image now. Havac 19:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
        • OfficialPix doesn't have a paticuliar policy concerning their images so if they don't say it then I consider it legit. Though I will contact OfficialPix just in case. Shouldn't be a problem. Alot of sites do this and nobody bats an eyelash. --Redemption^Talk 19:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
          • We could always shrink it to a smaller size. We don't really need it to be super huge if it's going to be used in the infobox. -- I need a name (Complain here) 22:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
            • If you think that is super huge then you should have seen it when I originally scanned it...--Redemption^Talk 22:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• I don't know Official Pix policy, but I don't think it could be a problem to use a scan. After all, OP sells "quality prints" before all. I mean that any kind of scan or copy would never be as good as the original you bought. BTW, thanks for this beautiful picture, Redemption! ;) -- Kaal 09:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• I emailed OfficialPix last week and still have yet to receive a reply. If I get no reply saying we can't by tomorrow afternoon, I'm assuming we can use it and putting it in. Just to give a heads up. --Redemption^Talk 20:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

And the Winner is...Edit

So it appears majority of votes go to Picture #9 as Infobox picture! That's great, amazing picture :P

Now, what shall we do with all the other 8? If they were good enough for being candidates as infobox images, I'm guessing we should keep some of them around. --Sauron18 06:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Seven needs to be used. It's too good not to. Havac 06:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

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