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 No Policy—Xwing328(Talk) 22:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Not too long ago, I lobbied against standardisation towards infobox images. Now, I argue for it. This may seem, to some of you, to be a dramatic change of mind, a Lucas-esque "going back on my word". But now, I have seen much of Wookieepedia - I have actively contributed to both articles and discussions, and I have proposed reforms - some succeeding, some failing.
But now I present, rather melodramatically, something that could change Wookieepedia's appearance wholesale. I am proposing that for infobox images, we use head shots, or mug shots. Now, before you rush about clicking the  button next to Oppose, hear me out.
Here are the reasons why I think a head shot in the infobox is a good idea.
Identity. To me, the Infobox is a sort of identity tag for each of the characters. It gives us the cold, hard facts about them at a glance, much like an ID card. Well, I ask you, does your ID card feature a full-body shot? Or does it have a mug shot? The key word here is "identity". Mug shots tend to have a higher familiarity rate than, say, a full body, or waist-up shot. Because, when you remember, or recognise someone, it is from looking at their face, not their attire, or their body language. This also applies to helmets - Boba Fett's helmet is far more identifiable with the average joe than, say, the rest of his attire. Ditto for Vader.
More commonly used in encyclopedias. There are exceptions, but on Wikipedia for instance, when there is a biograpical FA, you can put your money on the image being a head shot. This, again, ties back to identity.
Character. Character is always demonstrated in the eyes, or facial expression of someone (though, to a lesser extent, it can be shown by body language). To use an in-universe example, the busts of the Jedi Archives. They are designed to demonstrate, and show the personality of that particular Jedi Master, and that is far better done by showing the face; the eyes, rather than the superfulous body. When the face is obscured, this brings up a different problem, but that ties back to identity. Removing the body does not lose us information - rather, it gives us what is needed, and cuts away the...dead weight.
Regulation. If we choose to go with portraits, we can give this Wiki (or Wookiee), a far more uniform look. A full body shot can be cropped to be a portrait (quality permitting), but you cannot expand a head shot to incorporate the body. I feel, that by taking this choice, we will be able to give Wookieepedia a far more professional, and consistent look and style, in terms of character articles.
Serves the article better. By placing a head shot in the infobox of an article, many full body shots would have to be bumped. Many would argue that, say, for Grievous, a full body shot is more telling of his character. Well...not only is his pose generic (at least for someone with four arms), but we can't see anything about his expression (in the eyes, people). To be blunt, it gives us jack about his character. But, if we place these full body shots down in the peripheral sections (Personality/Traits, Appearance), we can actually describe their attire or appearance, and have the image that serves the content best, right next to it.
I think I've covered all of the arguements "against" in that as well. Apart from "looks akward, too colse". But whatever the hell you choose to do, don't vote against me because you hate me, or because I irk you. Vote against what I am saying because you believe I am wrong, and that what I have said above is void. And, don't vote with me because you like me, all two of you. Vote for what you think is right. And remember: "If the image fits, you must acquit". .... 22:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Since someone deleted my supporting vote from the other day, I guess I'll add it again, though with the same caveats that Kwenn mentioned. - JMAS 21:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I, too, recently voted for no policy, but the arguing it out on each page is getting old. I think the most important thing is that we have high quality shots; but a high quality full-body shot can become a high-quality headshot, and not vice-versa. - breathesgelatinTalk 22:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Trip 00:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC) Where applicable, of course.
Full-body images are just as good, and sometimes better, than headshots. Images in the infobox should not just be limited to headshots when a better full-body image is available. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax(Imperial Holovision) 00:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
DOWN WITH HEADSHOT POLICY! IT RUINED LUKE SKYWALKERS' ARTICAL! and as far as Boba! Bantha pudu! his Helmet would be complemented by his Armor! Valin "Tnu" "Shido" Suul 22:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Let's just not have a policy at all and keep arguing about it on each individual pageEdit
I know I've voted above, but I want to make sure my vote gets counted here. We *should* be arguing about these individually on each talk page instead of having a hand-tying blanket policy. Argument's aren't bad things if they lead to better articles. jSarek 01:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
The only policy I'd make is that no image should be preferred simply because it shows a character's shoes. The ideal image for an article about a human (or humanoid) character should be centred on their face, but this is not possible for all characters. —Silly Dan(talk) 01:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
While headshots are good for some characters, they are simply horrible for others, therefore, there should really be no policy, and it's better left depending on the individual character.--Sauron18 20:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Arguing is fun...plus, if I was to decide, I'd want the policy to be a "bust shot" (head and shoulders) unless it's the only image in the article, in which case full-body...so it gets confusing. —Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 04:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
I say we should use whichever looks best, to be honest.Darth Ceratis 19:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Not every character is going to have a head shot, and even then, not all are going to have good-quality ones. It would be best if we could use as many as possible, but really, there has to be some flexibility - \\Captain Kwenn//— Ahoy! 22:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. Each article needs to be looked at as an individual. --RedemptionTalk 22:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Where possible. .... 22:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Agree with Kwenn & Redemption. There has to be some flexibilty in this...not every character who has a picture available in a canon source has a headshot. StarNeptuneTalk to me! 22:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
As I said above, quality permitting, we can crop any image to become a head shot. .... 22:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Key words: where available. -- Riffsyphon1024 04:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Full-body images are just as good, and sometimes better So much for avoiding subjectivity. .... 06:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
IDs and bios in Earthly encyclopedias don't have to deal with with nonhuman individuals, which is why they're filled with headshots; the human face is our primary method of recognition. Note, however, that *animal* pics in encyclopedias are almost always full-body shots. jSarek 16:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Human supremacy now? I thought we were regarding all species as equal, being semi-in universe. ;P .... 21:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
In that case, that's a good argument for full-body shots of humans, too. If we're being truly (by which I mean excessively ;-) ) in-universe about it, some aliens might well use other metrics to tell humans apart, meaning they'd need a full-body pics to tell Dooku from Padme. jSarek 02:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure Rin Tin Tin would have a portrait in an encyclopedia. If you want to know what a species looks like, go to it's respective article. .... 03:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I concur. I don't want to have to go to a species page to see the full body shot or have to scroll down. I want it from the get go.--DannyBoy7783 16:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
But it's an individual. The article about Lak Sivrak is not about Shistavanens, nor should it be. It's about his life and times. Besides, if you want to see what he looks like in full, I suggested bumping full-body shots down to the Personality/Traits sections, or some other such peripheral section to the Bio. Did you not read any of this CT? .... 20:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Full-body shots do not deserve to be that far down in an article. They deserve to be in the infobox—where they all were until Thefourdot came along. I'm not trying to be rude, but it's the truth. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax(Imperial Holovision) 21:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
What is this "deserving"? They're not people, Jack, they're images. They don't "deserve" a thing. Neither do head shots. .... 21:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Also, not all articles have "Personality/Traits" sections, or indeed enough room for multiple images - \\Captain Kwenn//— Ahoy! 21:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, in that case, either the article should be expanded, or the full body shot should be spaced. At any rate, I'm yet to hear an arguement as to why we shouldn't have head shots in infoboxes... .... 21:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
No reason at all. It's just a matter of looking at a specific article and chosing an image. Each article is an individual. Not every article will look good with a headshot or full-body shot. The only time when one should take precinct over the other is if one is of better quality. --RedemptionTalk 22:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
As I say, quality permitting. But, as I also say, we can get closer to having a uniform look if we adopt this policy. .... 22:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
If the proposal included head shots and upper body shots, I'd support it. jSarek and Finlayson maintain a good point so I think there should be a certain degree of flexibility within the policy, as Captain Kwenn and QuentinGeorge have said. Not that I am advocating human supremacy, but there are undeniable physical differences between every species (human or not) in which other angles other than head shots should be included depending on the character. —Mirlen 00:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
But look at it this way (species wise). If I want to find out what a Human looks like on, say, Wikipedia, I go to the Human article. Not the Elton John article. If I want to find out what a Talz looks like, I'll go to the Talz article, not the Foul Moudama article. .... 04:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
You have a point there, so I conceed...to an extent. But it could be different for each individual even if he/she is within the same species of another, so I'll cast my vote for the third option. It's really what Redemption had said earlier: "It's just a matter of looking at a specific article and chosing an image. Each article is an individual. Not every article will look good with a headshot or full-body shot. The only time when one should take precinct over the other is if one is of better quality." —Mirlen 04:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
And what Redemption said is true, however, if not a policy, I think that a leaning towards head shots would be wise, for reasons stated above. Full-body shots, quite plainly, look ameturish. .... 05:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Redemption and Mirlen. If a head shot looks like crap, and there is a much better looking full-body shot, I think the full-body shot should be used. I'm not really loving that head shot we're using in the Luke Skywalker article. Don't we also favor promotional images?--Lord OblivionSith holocron 07:28, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, we do, but that's got nothing to do with the price of fish. .... 09:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone else find it funny that what was originally intended as a sarcastic response is currently "winning"? jSarek 13:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I think it's hilarious. Highly unencyclopedic, but still hilarious. -- Darth Culator(Talk)(TINC) 13:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
The eyebrow is well and truly cocked. .... 21:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
If we're not going to have a strict guideline, can we at least have a tendency towards head-shots. It is in the pursuit of professionalism, after all. .... 23:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Finlayson that loose guidelines might be needed. For example, the loose guideline could serve in times where the infobox picture cannot be decided and/or there is a draw (although that case is rare so perhaps guidelines are not necessarily needed), then perhaps a head shot or upper body shot should be used. —Mirlen 02:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I personally support guidelines in favor of rules. IE, headshots over full-body, high-quality over low-quality, more recent IU over older, etc, but the exact balance of what that means when you have a medium-quality recent portrait vs a high-quality older portrait vs a high-quality semi-recent fullbody. That's where "what is ideal" needs to be mashed out without a hard rule that says "only this one is acceptable". Havac 03:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't mind a guideline favoring headshots, so long as it's flexible enough to make exceptions when other shots are the better choice. jSarek 09:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Yea, I was thinking of something along those lines. Something to cut down on images changes due to people with totally different standards. -Fnlayson 23:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I would be more than happy with that. .... 23:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
10/3/16, no votes for 5 days. Seems like a reasonable consensus. —Xwing328(Talk) 17:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I really think it needs a clause like "or a headshot is insufficient to represent the character to the reader" needs to be included. I can't imagine headshots being particularly representative of characters like Grievous, Nampi, or Thon, and fuller shots (maybe not full body, but more than headshots) would be desirable in those cases. jSarek 06:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I adressed the issue of aliens before. .... 07:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Per jSarek. How about this wording? It is ideal that headshots are favored for infoboxes whenever possible, unless headshots are insufficient to represent the character to the reader and/or there are clear issues with quality or availability. A little less demanding, more along the lines of an "advised" guideline as agreed above. If the "guidelines" come out a little strong and demanding, then I'd much than rather prefer a straight-out policy that basically states the same thing. —Mirlen 13:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
unless headshots are insufficient to represent the character to the reader Too intangible and subjective. I prefer the original. .... 22:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, technically you could argue the same case with "clear issues with quality or availability" — that phrase is pretty vague and could be interpretated in a way a reader wishes it to be viewed, thus making it subjective. :P I can't really get myself to warm up to the original wording because I don't really see a difference between that and the policy suggested above. —Mirlen 23:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
My proposed policy was pretty much that they have to be used. And as for quality, it's something tangible...you can see the resolution, sharpness, et al. .... 23:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
They have to be? Does that mean the proposed policy didn't account for any exceptions at all? If so, then the policy was more extreme than I'd thought. Because you see, another problem with the original wording that bothers me (which why I added jSarek's comment into my wording) is the word 'clear.' It's very limited, and if the phrase "unless headshots are insufficient to represent the character to the reader" isn't added, then it'll be very difficult for non headshots to be included even though there aren't "clear issues of quality," which you have clarified as "resolution, sharpness, etc." For example, let's take a look at the two photos debated at the Anakin/Vader forum, File:Vader Helmet.jpg and File:The New Dark Lord.jpg. It seems that the latter pic is favored, despite the fact that the latter is a body shot as opposed to the former, which is a head shot. By this guideline, we should technically be using the former because there aren't any "clear issues of quality" or availability for that matter. However, the latter is chosen anyway, because the majority feels that the head shot insufficiently represents the character (I will expand into this if wished) and to quote Redemption once again, "It's just a matter of looking at a specific article and chosing an image." That is why I don't quite see the difference of having the proposed policy and the original guideline; therefore, the need for more flexible guideline that goes along the line of advising, as what was agreed in comments above. —Mirlen 04:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Let me rephrase - "have to be used, barring quality." Now, I'm not talking about the framing or position of the subject of the image, I'm talking about the cold, hard numbers - resolution, and all that muck. One of the original points I brought up was standardisation - a uniform look. I wouldn't be bringing this up if some members of the community favoured full body shots (Darth Vader), but what I'm trying to do is steer away from that, and towards a look that would be consistent from article to article. When there is an individual debate for each image, that all gets flushed down the drain, and in my opinion, a degree of presentability and professionalism does too. I have no problem with it being a guideline instead of strict policy, but there's not even much point of having a guideline if it's going to be as weak as water and not adhered to at all. It practically defeats the purpose. .... 08:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with wanting to be presentable and using standardisation as a method to do so, I just don't think it's quite necessary in this case as it would be with the text or heading layout. As for having a guideline that's "weak as water" — I don't see how it's necessarily "weak." Is it weaker than the original wording? Yes. But is it "weak as water"? I don't think so. All that was really done to the original wording was add a clause that jSarek proposed and a "it is advised" phrase in front of the "whenever possible;" the rest of the wording remains the same. Secondly, even if it was "weak as water," I think the guideline will be followed anyway. Nearly all of the serious editors here at Wookieepedia usually follow guidelines and policies, some with a more degree of flexibility and others with hardly any at all. But that's hardly besides the point. Perhaps second opinions are needed on this? Fnlayson or Havac perhaps, as they have seemed to be in favor of some sort of guideline earlier and have not yet commented in this discussion? I don't think you and I are going to be 'suaded either way. :) But I'm curious, if this policy (or guideline suggested in the beginning) was implemented, then how would you judge the Darth Vader images case? Not that I'm trying to add fuel to the flames or anything, but I admit I am curious to know how you would go about with it. —Mirlen 03:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
"Weak as Water" was a bit harsh, but that was just a figure of speech. As for Vader, he should not be an exception to the rule. Or guideline. Just because he fails on the count of "character", he still comes through on identity: People can identify an image of Vader's mask quicker than they can a full body shot. The current full body shot of Vader...or rather, what was the full body shot of Vader, is, by encyclopedia standards, horrific. It's this far away black blob, in a generic pose. I don't think that the image of the mask from ROTS is good either. But I think there are more than enough Vader headshots to go around. .... 03:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Do we want to hold a vote on this new policy? .... 22:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Alright, let's go. .... 04:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)